By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
The Vue is supposed to get 30/35 mpg? Wow, you sure? That must be with the 4 cylinder and the CVT.
The L series sedan with the same 4 banger and a manual gets 25/33, and it's lighter and more aerodynamic. I would expect 22/30 or so, maybe 21/28 with AWD.
Honda moved assembly of the Accords to the US without any damage to their reliability record, so I don't see why they can't do the same in the UK. It would be hard to measure, though, if they send both UK and Japan-built models here.
-juice
1. Do I pay the residual on my CR-V and keep it?
2. Do I turn it in and get a 2002 CR-V?
3. Do I look into alternatives?
I haven't done too much research yet on option #1. This would be the economical option for sure: buying a three-yr. old, avg. miles, very reliable (STILL have not had one problem with it) CR-V at a great price. Also, since the trade-in value has held up so well, I'm guessing I could make a little money on it by paying it off and selling it.
Option #2, the jury's still out. The spy shots and preliminary info of the new CR-V have been frankly underwhelming. Unless the power is significantly upgraded, I'm not sure I'd buy another one.
Option #3, there are a lot more choices out there today than there were three years ago, which is a good thing. Back then, at least for me, the choices boiled down to the CR-V and the Forester. Now there are plenty of new entrants, like the Liberty, Xterra, Triscape, etc.
When you have to make a sudden swerve, the weight transfers forward, and the tail becomes even lighter, causing it to swing out. To the average driver, sudden oversteer often results in an accident. There is no AWD system than can compensate for it like a stability control system (which as you know, uses brakes and throttle modulation).
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
When I mentioned the LSD, I was getting at the ability to transfer torque from side to side.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/20000619/press018552.html
Click here
If it is the real thing, then Honda might as well call it a mechanical redesign and minor bosdy restyling. Of course, isn't that pretty much Honda's SOP?
On another copy of that same pic there is a label at the bottom. Someone recognized it as belonging to a Vince Burlap. I guess this guy has done a number of fake spy pics seen in other forums.
http://home.rochester.rr.com/racoon/
i am pretty happy with the vehicle, sometimes, when i have 4 passengers i wish it had more horses, other than that it is fine piece of machinery
Bob
The C- and D-pillars in that "enhanced" photo look very fake. You can tell there is a black rectangle around it.
I agree with Drew on the value of VSA. Car & Driver took four wagons out in the snow, and 3 out of the 4 plowed into snow banks in their tests. These are professionals, crashing, basically.
The only one that didn't? The Outback VDC, because at the time it did not have an "off" switch for the traction/stability control. It does for 2002, funny enough.
I also saw a live demo at the M-B PowerTrip event. A pro driver took a coupe at 50mph through a slalom and got sideways with the feature turned off.
Then they turned it on and repeated the slalom at 60mph. It was wild, with a quick chirp of the tires here and there, but he made it! 10mph faster!
A well programmed systems allows you to go faster and more safely. I was impressed!
-juice
The article claims 160 HP and 162 ft lbs from a 2.4L 4 cyl. That would help explain the hefty Haulmark trailer we've seen in the other pics.
Slugline posted the image at the CR-V IX, but the quality is poor (photo of a magazine page).
Notice that the rear mounted spare is missing from some of the pictures???
http://users.ev1.net/~aurelio/temp/2002crv.jpg
The 2.0l from Europe makes enough horsepower, but SUVs are supposed to haul stuff, so torque would be a real blessing.
Great news, then.
-juice
Not that the 2002 CR-V won't fly off the lots anyway, no matter how they are equipped. It's amazing the previous gen are still selling so well!
Now if they came out with a Type-R CR-V, that would be a different story...
As much as I don't like the modest increase in horsepower, I think the new CR-V looks really good. I'm hoping body colored bumpers would be available.
154Hp in a Honda 2.0l or even a 2.2l I-4 will not compare in the "grunt" department.
I am really hoping that the 168HP 2.4l rumor is true:>)
My old college buddy got one and took me for a ride. Nice!
The 2003 Forester is coming soon, so the base 165hp engine may creep up a bit. My guess is it'll get about 170hp with some mild form of variable valve timing.
Plus there will be an upgrade option, probably the H6 or a light pressure turbo for the 2.5l. Either way, it'll have 200hp or more, and likely lead the class in power/weight ratio.
So there would still be room for a CR-V Type R. A V6 is doubtful, but why not VTEC that 2.4l? I bet it would be pretty sweet.
-juice
I wish some firm info about the new CR-V would come out. If the new CR-V is only going to be in the 160hp range, I will probably not consider it.
That Liberty looks awful nice. I've always been a big Jeep fan, but the scary part is the unknown reliability factor...
Honda is supposed to have all domestic vehicles meet 2010 emmisions and fuel efficiency specs. They've been saying that the i-VTEC engines are the way to meet that goal. Unless they are going to give us Americans a big block and keep the 2.0 at home (not likely), then I'd guess that the 2.4 would use the same technology.
The 2.0 in the Stream puts out 154 hp. With an extra .4 liters to play with, Honda has some room for tweaking. Since the HP output is only in the 160 range, I'd guess that it's tuned for a very broad torque curve.
I'm still placing any bets on a 2.4 block, though.
I'm hopeful that the new plant DC built for the Liberty will have some effect on quality. The fact that no major reported problems have been reported so far after ~3 months is a good sign (in contrast to the Triscape)
Ken
Bob
The mini-ute market has leap-frogged the CR-V over the past few years in terms of power. With several newer models out there (Escape, Xterra, Liberty) with 200+ hp available, 160 hp seems like kind of a half-hearted effort. I guess until we have solid info, I should reserve judgement!
My guess is Honda is trying to bridge the gap between "mini" and "small". Personally, I believe that is one reason why the CR-V is still selling well. It has the capacity of a small ute, but the economy of a mini. The fact that it lacks the towing power of the 6 cyl competition is a problem, but not one that greatly effects sales.
My wants and needs are a little different this time around than they were three years ago though. I guess I'm disappointed that Honda doesn't have something out there for me. My spouse and I were actually considering an MDX, but both having fallen victim to Silly Valley layoffs in the past six months, our sights have been re-set lower due to the economic uncertainty. I think the Honda-badged MDX is probably what we want, if only it were gonna be available...
I'm in a similar boat (new car interest-wise). When I got the CR-V, I had one dog, a few long legged friends to take camping, and a good deal less cash. Now I've got more of the above. The needs have expanded with two dogs, a group of highschool kids to take everywhere, and I can afford a bit more. The Honda MDX clone would be a better fit if I were buying now.
160hp for the new CR-V doesn't sound like something to write home about, but I'd like to see some performance numbers also. I remember reading a comparison test from AutoWorld Weekly where they compared a Rav4, CR-V and Tribute (4 cylinder), and the 4-year old CR-V was fastest to 60mph compared to the two newer competitors!
If assuming that 160hp & 160lb-ft torque figures are true, the new CR-V would be 20hp & 40lb-ft torque stronger. I just have a feeling that this would be adequate power for the CR-V to reach 60mph as fast as the V-6 powered Escape.
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Condit probably used a car to transport the body, yeah. it is car related. Every web site, from cars to finance has Condit and Connie on front page today.
Gotta 'nother two days to dream about my new fleet of limos....
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
The '01 RAV4 is a very well-done package, giving the feeling of "a sense of total integration", as one magazine reviewer wrote, and "the most fun-to-drive SUV". It is adequately powered in real-world, day-to-day use.
It's just not for everyone.
Diploid - That comparison of the RAV4, CR-V, and Tribute doesn't surprise me. While there is reason to complain about torque, the CR-V's acceleration figures have always been pretty good. You just need to rev it. In fact, while the automatic is a bit pokey, the 5 speed CR-V has been clocked at 8.6, 8.9, and 9.1 secs in 0-60 runs. Unless the new model has put on significant weight, those 160's numbers should be adequate.
This is where I'm hoping that the new CR-V will excel. Its looks reminds me of a Rav4, but it will be bigger and more powerful.
But I would further wait to see what the new Forester has to offer before I make any buying decision.
I just wonder why they don't bring the 2-door models over...
I wouldn't be suprised if Honda decides to gear the 5-speed CR-V a little taller this time to reduce highway driving noise now that the engine is bigger.
Aside from 0-60 numbers, I'd also be interested in the torque curve especially when looking at SUVs.
Ken
Kens - Yes, gearing is as important as hp when it comes to acceleration. However, I don't think a tradeoff is required. It's possible to have short 1st and 2nd gears without also having a tall 5th. In the current CR-V, they kept them all short because the torque curve gets interesting around 3K. With 5th spinning at that rpm, it allows for best passing power at highway speed. I would have prefered that 5th were a taller gear (if I want to pass, I'll downshift), but Honda wasn't listening to me back then. ;-)
The torque curves for the 2.0 i-VTEC variants are all pretty flat. The Stream puts out max torque from about 2 - 4.5K. I don't recall what it is the Civic TR or the RSXs. I reread the message attributed to C&D and saw that it specifies an i-VTEC block. So far, so good.
Spy - The back of the new RAV4 is a little better, but not much.