Am I looking at the picture wrong? Is the parking brake that thing sticking out that looks like a large toilet flush lever? Looks kinda ugly and seems awkward to use. Do you pull it back or what? Looks like you have to twist your hand around to grab it. I wish they had retained the floor mounted lever.
The article also says the auto transmission lever is now housed in the centre console rather than on the colume. Still kind of difficult to visualize....guess I have to wait to see it in the flesh.
Not quite the 'center' console. Instead of being housed on the column, it extends from the dash next to the steering wheel. The handle ends up in the same place, but the anchor point is different.
Sorry if I'm being nit picky, but when I read, "center console", I thought of this
Okay, so what do you guys think. Is this CR-V a "mini-ute" anymore? It's longer, wider, heavier (I'm guessing at least 200lbs after that article), better equiped; it has 72 cu.ft. of cargo space, and probably a mid $20K price tag for a loaded model. Except for the engine, this thing is as big as a Grand Cherokee and not far from the Highlander.
Before making a decision to purchase a Toyota Highlander I figured I would wait and see what the new CRV would look like. Well, I am extremely disappointed in the overall exterior look, especially the big black composite bumpers and the insistence on having an outside spare, I personally don’t care for the macho look. The interior also retains the front tray table instead of a useful centre console and what’s with the parking brake handle? On the plus side there is the increase in horsepower and torque with improved NVH. Back to the HL.
Are the 2 reviews from Canadian sources? Don't they let American journalists, or at least people from the United States, test drive the friggin thing, too? They say that both models of the new CR-V will have AWD- is that specifically for the Canadian market?
varmit- like I said earlier, this new CR-V looks as big as a Hyundai Santa Fe. They might as well just give it 4 wheel steering as an added marketing ploy since it won't be as easy to maneuver as the outgoing model.
Nope. Apparently Honda of Canada got the scoop on us.
I don't mind the extra size. I bought the CR-V as an economical alternative to the JGC, Pathfinder, or Rodeo. It's the extra weight that bother's me. 14HP isn't a big increase if they've added too much weight. Torque is great and all, but HP is what makes the car move.
I'll wait for a test drive before making a decision on low speed maneuverability. No one has commented turning circles. Right now the current CR-V is longer in both overall length and wheelbase than the Forester, but it shares the same turning circle. With the new suspension, who can tell. Visibility hasn't been commented on either.
Did anyone else notice that the two pictures of the vertical hand brakes from the two articles looked different?
The picture from the Ottowa Citizen looked as if someone took a spy picture of the interior, which leads to another question: How come all we see are the exterior? What about interior pictures? Did these journalists even get a chance to sit in the car?
Car and Driver tested a 77 CRV, 0 to 60 time is 10.9 seconds. Then a 2001 time is 10.3 seconds. All with automatic.
If the 02 is 2.7 (less than 3) seconds faster than the 77, I get 8.2 seconds. That's identical to Mazda Tribute's. Escape time in the March 01 issue is 8.5 seconds. This could be one fun little truck.
I think the new CRV looks just fine, the old one looked ugly at first but I turned around.
A loaded Tribute go for 26k MSRP, you can negotiate $500 off tops. The new CRV should still be cheaper to buy even if Honda raises prices.
IMHO they tried to fix something that ain't broke. Honda does have a tendency from time to time to try to reinvent the wheel. Remember the instrument pod and radio on the 1979-80 Prelude?
Personally, I like the folding table vs. a fixed console. Loved it on the Odyssey I had.
As for the new CR-V, it looks like they fixed quite a few details like NVH and a bit more room which was never a problem with the original. The amount of torque is up substantially which is the most important thing vs. horsepower.
As for Highlander vs. CR-V, they're really two different classes of vehicles, though the fact that people are cross shopping the two is a compliment to the CR-V. It sounds like the CR-V is moving closer to sophistication to the Highlander without a big increase in price. I like the Highlander, but be careful with those options. A loaded Highlander V-6 AWD limited is $35k which is the same as a 240hp, 3rd row seating MD-X. Really, the MD-X is the competition. A 4 cyl AWD Highlander is going to run you over $25k. If you're looking for something to compete with the Highlander, you're going to have to wait. It's painful. Honda could have a clean sweep if they had all their plants up and running by now.
As for the Escape/Tribute, no one would buy one with a 4 cylinder, too weak. Yet, the CR-V's 2.4 liter will probably do just fine.
Anyway you slice it, increased competition means better products at lower prices. Notice how SUV's are being seriously discounted, especially the American brands.
Racoon - I think that the increase in width will make a bigger impression than the numbers suggest. The length isn't a big increase, and will much less obvious, however the CR-V is already one of the longest in this "class".
The increase in cargo capacity also puts it a step closer to mid-size. Most mid-size SUVs have between 75 and 80 cu.ft. or cargo volume. At 72 cu.ft. the CR-V is very close to the JGC (75) and RX300 (75), but it has more rear passenger space than either of them. The XL-7 (73), Xterra (66), and Santa Fe (78) are another group of "in-betweeners" and the CR-V compares favorably with them.
I don't think that the CR-V is going to compete head to head with any of these. It would need a 6 cyl to do that. I just think it's getting kinda big for its britches.
I'm another one who likes the folding console/pass-through. Not only is the pass-through a handy feature for getting to the back, it also makes life much easier when hauling long items. There's plenty of storage in other places, so having a full center console would be kind of redundant.
Some reviewers complained about the floor mounted parking brake in the current model. Since the seats are higher than normal, you have to fully extend your arm to reach it. If you're in the habit of using the brake when stopped on a hill (driving a 5 speed), it can be awkward. The new version looks like a pretty slick (though minor) improvement.
The Highlander doesn't really have any direct competition. At the top end, it competes with the MDX and RX300. However, the 2.4L base model competes well with the Santa Fe, Escape, and I would guess the new CR-V. The price would be higher, but the extra cargo space and reliability of the Toyota would make it worth the money to many folks.
I suspect that the "almost 3 second improvement" is based on some of the less aggressive times that have been published for the CR-V. I'd expect the new autos to squeek under 9 secs and the manuals to get to the low 8's.
On the other hand, Honda tends to be conservative with their performance predictions. With the MDX, they estimated mid to high 8 seconds. The test results from most mags have bettered that and average in the low to mid 8 second range. The same goes for the RSX-S. Testing thus far has proven the car to be quicker than the Honda published specs.
If Scname's prediction is correct and the auto can do 8.2 seconds, then the 5 speeds will be smokin' up the tracks.
I am in the market for a 2001 LX 4wd A4...does anyone have any recent buying experience with this model? Does anyone know the lowball price the dealer will accept, considering the new models are coming out? I am in WI, but IL is also a possibility for me. Thanks for your help.
It was a no-brainer to assume that Honda would increase power and reduce NVH. But I'm disappointed that Honda did not: 1. Stuff that tire below the picnic table, or at least make that an option 2. Provide a real bumper 3. Add more pizzazz to the styling. I've never quite understood this business of not "alienating existing customers" as an excuse to provide bland styling. I wasn't expecting something as absurd as a 1996 Ford Taurus, but surely Honda could have done a better job, like Toyota did on the new RAV. And it was silly to add more cladding upfront to make the vehicle look more "rugged".
One almost thinks that Honda must have a special design manager to ensure that redesigned vehicles for the US market are "dulled down". How else to explain the 2001 Civic and the new CRV?
I'm a longtime Honda owner who's gotten bored of their s-l-o-w styling changes.
My guess was right. The tailgate is one piece , lift window is part of the tailgate. Honda is the best car company in the world. I got every wish fullfilled, power, moonroof, flip out window on the tailgate. This arrangement is as good as the one piece lift gate on Tribute.
Torque is rated 162 at 3600 rpm, much highier rpm than was reported.
My response: As with virtually every Honda introduction, I'm both impressed and disappointed. Clearly it's a better vehicle than the one it's replacing, but somehow I keep wishing for more... more power, more gears, more capability, wished the rear door opened to the traffic, etc....
I think anybody who who is debating as to whether to wait for the '02 model, I say definitely wait. It's clearly a better vehicle.
scname....one piece (with sep. opening glass) of tribute opens up, has no spare to block your view, doesn't block the curb when loading/unloading and lets the rear bumper (does the new cr-v even have one?) do its job.......no contest, honda blew it on this one. on the positive side, at least opening it is no longer a 2 step process. toronto star "wheels" article (unfortunately no link on their website) reports about 4% better highway fuel economy with city mileage about the same. it'll probably look better in person than the pix (most honda's do) but still agree, they could've pushed the envelope a little further...the acres of ugly black cladding (aztec-inspired?) only make it worse. article says LX prototypes were the vehicles tested, so maybe EX will replace the upper black cladding with body colour. also, isn't it weird that the door handles are black but tailgate handle is body colour? again, maybe because it's a pre-production prototype. star article also says honda clains 2 mountain bikes will fit in standing up with wheels on when seats are tumbled forward.....doesn't look like it from the pix.. maybe seats are removeable too. love the new power with economy, the new quietness, the built-in roof rails (with cross-bar mounting points) which should contribute zip to wind noise, more comfortable seats, more room, better handling etc. still hate the rear door, ugly cladding & wish honda would chanel some of their engine expertise and enthusiasm towards styling. p.s. one article says honda was going for best in class results for us transport/insurance crash tests.......too bad about the guaranteed lousy result they're going to get in rear bashes.
I'm in Houston. Last time I parked curbside was 5 years ago. We got plenty of large parking lots here and a side opening tailgate is easier to operate than a lift hatch. The way Honda opens to the driver side is more convenient for us.
This country is moving toward Walmart with 800 parking spaces, not some little shop downtown you can't squeeze into between the meters.
.....being from Texas explains it....as we all know, everything is bigger there. I'm surprised you drive a CR-V.....thought you'd be in a big honkin' Navigator or Expedition! We're into "smart growth" up here....kinda the opposite of "sprawl". even in a big honkin' walmart parking lot, a side opening gate sticks out into traffic more and can be a pain if you're backed into a space. anyway, not everybody is fortunate enough to have the wide open spaces of Texas. why is it so difficult to open a hatch?....just flip it up on gas-assisted struts.....you could do it with one finger. in my more-congested world, a hatch is a much easier fit.....and would be just as convenient for your wide open world as well.
A lift gate is easy to operate for me but I have senior parents who will be using it. It takes quite a bit of muscle and reach to get it down.
Best thing about lift gate is lift gate party. You can sit in the back , lift gate shielding you from rain or our scorching sun. We like to fish out of the back of our SUV around here. Maybe Honda could add a pullout tarp next ?
The gold CRV has painted side mirrors and mag wheels, previous silver one did not. I hope this is not the EX as the bumpers still are not painted.
I much prefer a liftgate, to a door. Besides eliminating the "which-side-should-the-rear-door-be hinged-on" argument, it also better protects you in the rain, when you have to load/unload.
Also, there are still a lot of people who live in cities and towns where parallel parking is the rule, not the exception.
RE: Lift gates: Ever try closing one of those suckers on a Chrysler minivan? There is a minimum height and weight requirement! Side-opening gate is much better (for smaller folks).
Security system: Anyone know whether any of the models will have a factory security system similar to the Accord EX's, or will that be a dealer-installed option like for the current model?
How about undercarriage protection? I was hoping Honda would offer some sort of skid plate. Not that many people would go boulder-hopping, but you would want to at least be able to drive it up a logging road for hiking, camping, etc.
actually, scname, a liftgate (designed properly with gas-assist struts) might be easier for your folks, as they wouldn't have the weight of the spare to contend with. unless you're parked completely level (i know, it's flat in Texas too!) a side-hinged door with a heavy wheel/spare can be a challenge too. and now that the door is one-piece and includes the window, it will be even heavier.
we're talking Honda here....not DC minivans...i'm sure a Honda liftgate would be a piece of cake to operate and include a grab handle/strap for the vertically challenged. no wonder DC had to go to the trouble and expense of designing a motorized liftgate!
LOL, my 5" tall sister didn't find the tailgate on the Chrylser minivan to be that difficult to close. I do find that the struts that hold it open are quite a bit stiffer than my M-class though. With the latter, I only have to use one hand to grab the handle, and pull it down with one swing, never ever having to touch the outside of the tailgate and dirty my palm.
Drew....check this out! "The new model was designed to earn top ratings in government and insurance industry crash tests, Honda says." So says the Ottawa Citizen article (see link in msg.#2538). With no rear bumper and a protruding spare, that's going to be quite a feat. Maybe Honda's surprise is that it has "externally mounted" rear airbags!
I'm growing more and more anxious about the "surprise." I even signed up to receive an e-mail in September.
Like several of the last posts, I am disappointed at the rear spare. I'm not complaining that it's because it's on a side hinged tailgate, but because the initial sketches of the CR-V made it look as if the spare would be integrated into the tailgate, allowing the CR-V to have an adequate bumper.
Also, the sketches made it appear as if the spare would be covered in hard plastic (like the current models)- and once again, we get the vinyl covering. It's nothing to really complain about, but the hard cover looks much more classy.
And remember that bump in the back that everyone thought was going to be like the Nissan Xterra's emergency kit reservoir? It's gone in these new photos, replaced by the letters CR-V.
I wouldn't mind the front black cladding if it were like the ones on the current CR-V, where they allow some paint to cover the upper portion. I guess they wanted to really bring out the new chrome grille.
I guess when the article mentioned fitting 2 bikes with the seats down, they were referring to kiddie bikes because I'm having difficulties picturing 2 adult bikes fitting in the interior from these newer pictures.
Did you guys notice that the front center dashboard resembles that of the Santa Fe?
I haven't seen any safety related crash test scores. I don't see how, with a rear spare tire sticking out beyond the rear bumper, that the rear crash tests are going to be good. If they are, Honda will be the first (and only) SUV with a rear-mounted spare to do well.
Like I said it's better than the old model, but I can still find plenty of things that I had hoped for—that aren't there. I will, however try and contain myself, until I see more specifics. I'm keenly awaiting info on towing capacity.
Again, as I said earlier, it's a typical Honda new model upgrade—from what I can see at this point. That's both good and bad.
Yeah Bob, I see both good and bad in the new design as well. I don't mind discussing the bad points either, but this constant nagging about a single crash score is getting boring. Next to the HP vs torque debate, it's the oldest argument in this thread. There's so much more to see.
The bumper bash is not a measure of safety. So the location of the spare tire may or may not have any effect on safety. I'm certain that it may be more expensive to fix, but that doesn't have anything to do with safety. For all we know, having the spare in that location could save lives.
As for the improved safety related crash scores, I am taking Honda at their word, and I don't blame you for being skeptical. Here's my take on them.
Every manufacturer does their own in-house testing. They can pretty much figure out how well a car is going to do. Honda has recently claimed top notch crash scores on several models (the Ody, the MDX, the Civic, and the RSX). Not all have been tested, but those that have earned the scores that Honda predicted.
The first gen CR-V scored very well in the NHTSA front and side impact tests. It only earned a marginal score on the IIHS test. The Civic that it is based on earned mostly average scores. The new Civic has improved in all crash tests. Thanks in part to the new suspension and a redesigned frame. These are things that the new CR-V shares.
A while back, Honda built the first complete indoor crash testing facility. This allows them to test all types of accidents including static barrier tests as well as auto vs auto tests. And since they don't have to wait for the weather, they can do it all year long.
So I'm willing to take Honda seriously when they make this claim. How significant the improvement remains to be seen, but I think it's a safe bet that we won't be disappointed.
I am hoping that someone can tell me the new address to Bings CRV message board that started on Aug 1st...... someone was nice enough to give it to me and i forgot to right it down before i changed my motherbord and processer on Fri and forgot to save my bookmarks.... i am like totally in need of the address again.....thanks so much.....Al
Okay. Interesting possibilities I've found in this picture.
Where the rear wheel well intrudes into the cargo area, there is a verticle "bump". Something similar appears in the current model, but it is truncated at the top. Becuase this new one is not truncated, I suspect we no longer have the option of folding the seats into a bed. Bummer.
I also noticed a notch below the rear window in the top edge of the plastic cargo liner. This might be a clip of some sort for either a cargo net or a cargo cover. The current cargo cover requires some whole to be drilled, so this is an improvement.
There's a little loop sticking out of the back of one seat (the one that is tilted forward). Looks like a handle to pull the seat back into place or possibly a release cord. The gap that runs down the base of the seat looks like the point where it slides back and forth.
On the seat that is only folded over once there is a gismo recessed into the top of the seat next to the head rest. Probably just another release lever, but at least it isn't the same pull knob on the current models. Those are a pain when the seats are folded forward and they're squished up against the part in front of it.
I don't see tether anchor points on the backs of the seats. Those are probably still located in the roof at the back of the cargo area.
Well, after waiting months for a photo of the new CR-V I have to say that I am shockingly diosappointed.
My thoughts:
1) What is with the shifter? How is a manual tranny going to work? 2) 160Hp isn't goign to cut it in this class anymore. Look where it generates its HP, 6200 RPM. When was the last time anyone went that high? 3) Pass through makes the CR-V just like every other...minivan. 4) Styling is way too bland and not evolutionary enough. I agree with the bumper issue as well.
Yes, Honda did include the moonroof in the design, but sheesh, I am disappointed.
but I'm also looking at the new CRV, not just in context of how it compares with the old model, but how it compares with others out there. In my case specifically, how does it compare to the Forester, since that's what I own?
For me that answer is not so clear cut, especially knowing that a new Forester will arrive on these shores 3-4 months after this new CRV arrives.
Here's what I like:
• The styling. I think it's an improvement on an already neat looking car.
• The increased power. I wish it were more, but I think(?) I could live with this engine.
• Interior upgrades. From what I can see, I like most, if not all of the changes.
• Increased refinement. Always Honda's ace in the hole. I'm sure this car will be more comfortable on trips.
What I don't like:
• The rear door. It appears to be better than the last model, but as I said in previous posts, I prefer a liftgate with the spare mounted under the floor.
• I had hoped for a 5-speed automatic, and a 6-speed manual—with a creeper 1st. gear like the old mid-80's Civic Real-Time 4WD wagon had. I'm sure it was due to a cost issue, but I had hoped Honda would have found a way around it.
• Real-Time 4WD. As I had mentioned many, many posts ago, I prefer the full-time AWD found on Subarus, to an on-demand system found here. I know there are some people here who say "in the real world, it doesn't make any difference." I respectfully disagree with that.
Unknowns
• Details. This where the devil lives.
• Towing. I hope it's at least 2000 pounds.
• Roof rack rating. I hope it's at least 100 pounds. 150 pounds would be perfect.
• Haven't seen it in person, or driven one.
So, I haven't given up on it—I'm just not yet convinced.
I'm disappointed that Honda boasts about the improved crash results but yet cannot do something as simple as design a rear hatch that won't get damaged in a test that they know the Insurance institute is going to conduct, regardless of if or if it doesn't affects safety in higher speed accidents.
Comments
"the slushbox's shifter pokes straight out of the dash beside the steering wheel without even a "how do you do?" "
Ken
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/story.asp?id=B7185F85-4FEB-41AE-B7EE-5B57D7288A13
Thanks to Wayne at the CR-V IX for the link.
Sorry if I'm being nit picky, but when I read, "center console", I thought of this
varmit- like I said earlier, this new CR-V looks as big as a Hyundai Santa Fe. They might as well just give it 4 wheel steering as an added marketing ploy since it won't be as easy to maneuver as the outgoing model.
I don't mind the extra size. I bought the CR-V as an economical alternative to the JGC, Pathfinder, or Rodeo. It's the extra weight that bother's me. 14HP isn't a big increase if they've added too much weight. Torque is great and all, but HP is what makes the car move.
I'll wait for a test drive before making a decision on low speed maneuverability. No one has commented turning circles. Right now the current CR-V is longer in both overall length and wheelbase than the Forester, but it shares the same turning circle. With the new suspension, who can tell. Visibility hasn't been commented on either.
(For those of us south of the border, that's 1.25" and 1.06")
You'd need a measuring tape to even notice.
The picture from the Ottowa Citizen looked as if someone took a spy picture of the interior, which leads to another question: How come all we see are the exterior? What about interior pictures? Did these journalists even get a chance to sit in the car?
If the 02 is 2.7 (less than 3) seconds faster than the 77, I get 8.2 seconds. That's identical to Mazda Tribute's. Escape time in the March 01 issue is 8.5 seconds. This could be one fun little truck.
I think the new CRV looks just fine, the old one looked ugly at first but I turned around.
A loaded Tribute go for 26k MSRP, you can negotiate $500 off tops. The new CRV should still be cheaper to buy even if Honda raises prices.
Honda does have a tendency from time to time to try to reinvent the wheel. Remember the instrument pod and radio on the 1979-80 Prelude?
As for the new CR-V, it looks like they fixed quite a few details like NVH and a bit more room which was never a problem with the original. The amount of torque is up substantially which is the most important thing vs. horsepower.
As for Highlander vs. CR-V, they're really two different classes of vehicles, though the fact that people are cross shopping the two is a compliment to the CR-V. It sounds like the CR-V is moving closer to sophistication to the Highlander without a big increase in price. I like the Highlander, but be careful with those options. A loaded Highlander V-6 AWD limited is $35k which is the same as a 240hp, 3rd row seating MD-X. Really, the MD-X is the competition. A 4 cyl AWD Highlander is going to run you over $25k. If you're looking for something to compete with the Highlander, you're going to have to wait. It's painful. Honda could have a clean sweep if they had all their plants up and running by now.
As for the Escape/Tribute, no one would buy one with a 4 cylinder, too weak. Yet, the CR-V's 2.4 liter will probably do just fine.
Anyway you slice it, increased competition means better products at lower prices. Notice how SUV's are being seriously discounted, especially the American brands.
The increase in cargo capacity also puts it a step closer to mid-size. Most mid-size SUVs have between 75 and 80 cu.ft. or cargo volume. At 72 cu.ft. the CR-V is very close to the JGC (75) and RX300 (75), but it has more rear passenger space than either of them. The XL-7 (73), Xterra (66), and Santa Fe (78) are another group of "in-betweeners" and the CR-V compares favorably with them.
I don't think that the CR-V is going to compete head to head with any of these. It would need a 6 cyl to do that. I just think it's getting kinda big for its britches.
Some reviewers complained about the floor mounted parking brake in the current model. Since the seats are higher than normal, you have to fully extend your arm to reach it. If you're in the habit of using the brake when stopped on a hill (driving a 5 speed), it can be awkward. The new version looks like a pretty slick (though minor) improvement.
The Highlander doesn't really have any direct competition. At the top end, it competes with the MDX and RX300. However, the 2.4L base model competes well with the Santa Fe, Escape, and I would guess the new CR-V. The price would be higher, but the extra cargo space and reliability of the Toyota would make it worth the money to many folks.
I suspect that the "almost 3 second improvement" is based on some of the less aggressive times that have been published for the CR-V. I'd expect the new autos to squeek under 9 secs and the manuals to get to the low 8's.
On the other hand, Honda tends to be conservative with their performance predictions. With the MDX, they estimated mid to high 8 seconds. The test results from most mags have bettered that and average in the low to mid 8 second range. The same goes for the RSX-S. Testing thus far has proven the car to be quicker than the Honda published specs.
If Scname's prediction is correct and the auto can do 8.2 seconds, then the 5 speeds will be smokin' up the tracks.
1. Stuff that tire below the picnic table, or at least make that an option
2. Provide a real bumper
3. Add more pizzazz to the styling. I've never quite understood this business of not "alienating existing customers" as an excuse to provide bland styling. I wasn't expecting something as absurd as a 1996 Ford Taurus, but surely Honda could have done a better job, like Toyota did on the new RAV. And it was silly to add more cladding upfront to make the vehicle look more "rugged".
One almost thinks that Honda must have a special design manager to ensure that redesigned vehicles for the US market are "dulled down". How else to explain the 2001 Civic and the new CRV?
I'm a longtime Honda owner who's gotten bored of their s-l-o-w styling changes.
That auto shifter rod looks like a slot machine arm!
Torque is rated 162 at 3600 rpm, much highier rpm than was reported.
My response: As with virtually every Honda introduction, I'm both impressed and disappointed. Clearly it's a better vehicle than the one it's replacing, but somehow I keep wishing for more... more power, more gears, more capability, wished the rear door opened to the traffic, etc....
I think anybody who who is debating as to whether to wait for the '02 model, I say definitely wait. It's clearly a better vehicle.
Bob
Length 178.62
width 70.157
height 66.22
Brakes 11.1 inch disk front and rear. ground clearance 8 inches.
Is that a plastic intake manifold in the engine bay ?
Three dials for air control, I don't see a separate ventilation( in/outside air) control.
Passenger arm rest shown in photo.
Recirc button is on the left HVAC knob.
Stainless steel exhaust and timing chain?????
doesn't block the curb when loading/unloading and lets the rear bumper (does the new cr-v even have one?) do its job.......no contest, honda blew it on this one. on the positive side, at least opening it is no longer a 2 step process.
toronto star "wheels" article (unfortunately no link on their website) reports about 4% better highway fuel economy with city mileage about the same. it'll probably look better in person than the pix (most honda's do) but still agree, they could've pushed the envelope a little further...the acres of ugly black cladding (aztec-inspired?) only make it worse. article says LX prototypes were the vehicles tested, so maybe EX will replace the upper black cladding with body colour. also, isn't it weird that the door handles are black but tailgate handle is body colour? again, maybe because it's a pre-production prototype. star article also says honda clains 2 mountain bikes will fit in standing up with wheels on when seats are tumbled forward.....doesn't look like it from the pix.. maybe seats are removeable too. love the new power with economy, the new quietness, the built-in roof rails (with cross-bar mounting points) which should contribute zip to wind noise, more comfortable seats, more room, better handling etc.
still hate the rear door, ugly cladding & wish honda would chanel some of their engine expertise and enthusiasm towards styling.
p.s. one article says honda was going for best in class results for us transport/insurance crash tests.......too bad about the guaranteed lousy result they're going to get in rear bashes.
This country is moving toward Walmart with 800 parking spaces, not some little shop downtown you can't squeeze into between the meters.
Best thing about lift gate is lift gate party. You can sit in the back , lift gate shielding you from rain or our scorching sun. We like to fish out of the back of our SUV around here. Maybe Honda could add a pullout tarp next ?
The gold CRV has painted side mirrors and mag wheels, previous silver one did not. I hope this is not the EX as the bumpers still are not painted.
Also, there are still a lot of people who live in cities and towns where parallel parking is the rule, not the exception.
Bob
Security system: Anyone know whether any of the models will have a factory security system similar to the Accord EX's, or will that be a dealer-installed option like for the current model?
How about undercarriage protection? I was hoping Honda would offer some sort of skid plate. Not that many people would go boulder-hopping, but you would want to at least be able to drive it up a logging road for hiking, camping, etc.
a side-hinged door with a heavy wheel/spare can be a challenge too. and now that the door is one-piece and includes the window, it will be even heavier.
ejp
Like several of the last posts, I am disappointed at the rear spare. I'm not complaining that it's because it's on a side hinged tailgate, but because the initial sketches of the CR-V made it look as if the spare would be integrated into the tailgate, allowing the CR-V to have an adequate bumper.
Also, the sketches made it appear as if the spare would be covered in hard plastic (like the current models)- and once again, we get the vinyl covering. It's nothing to really complain about, but the hard cover looks much more classy.
And remember that bump in the back that everyone thought was going to be like the Nissan Xterra's emergency kit reservoir? It's gone in these new photos, replaced by the letters CR-V.
I wouldn't mind the front black cladding if it were like the ones on the current CR-V, where they allow some paint to cover the upper portion. I guess they wanted to really bring out the new chrome grille.
I guess when the article mentioned fitting 2 bikes with the seats down, they were referring to kiddie bikes because I'm having difficulties picturing 2 adult bikes fitting in the interior from these newer pictures.
Did you guys notice that the front center dashboard resembles that of the Santa Fe?
Like I said it's better than the old model, but I can still find plenty of things that I had hoped for—that aren't there. I will, however try and contain myself, until I see more specifics. I'm keenly awaiting info on towing capacity.
Again, as I said earlier, it's a typical Honda new model upgrade—from what I can see at this point. That's both good and bad.
Bob
If it is a now a "car," you know for sure it will have to pass tougher crash tests.
Bob
The bumper bash is not a measure of safety. So the location of the spare tire may or may not have any effect on safety. I'm certain that it may be more expensive to fix, but that doesn't have anything to do with safety. For all we know, having the spare in that location could save lives.
As for the improved safety related crash scores, I am taking Honda at their word, and I don't blame you for being skeptical. Here's my take on them.
Every manufacturer does their own in-house testing. They can pretty much figure out how well a car is going to do. Honda has recently claimed top notch crash scores on several models (the Ody, the MDX, the Civic, and the RSX). Not all have been tested, but those that have earned the scores that Honda predicted.
The first gen CR-V scored very well in the NHTSA front and side impact tests. It only earned a marginal score on the IIHS test. The Civic that it is based on earned mostly average scores. The new Civic has improved in all crash tests. Thanks in part to the new suspension and a redesigned frame. These are things that the new CR-V shares.
A while back, Honda built the first complete indoor crash testing facility. This allows them to test all types of accidents including static barrier tests as well as auto vs auto tests. And since they don't have to wait for the weather, they can do it all year long.
So I'm willing to take Honda seriously when they make this claim. How significant the improvement remains to be seen, but I think it's a safe bet that we won't be disappointed.
Where the rear wheel well intrudes into the cargo area, there is a verticle "bump". Something similar appears in the current model, but it is truncated at the top. Becuase this new one is not truncated, I suspect we no longer have the option of folding the seats into a bed. Bummer.
I also noticed a notch below the rear window in the top edge of the plastic cargo liner. This might be a clip of some sort for either a cargo net or a cargo cover. The current cargo cover requires some whole to be drilled, so this is an improvement.
There's a little loop sticking out of the back of one seat (the one that is tilted forward). Looks like a handle to pull the seat back into place or possibly a release cord. The gap that runs down the base of the seat looks like the point where it slides back and forth.
On the seat that is only folded over once there is a gismo recessed into the top of the seat next to the head rest. Probably just another release lever, but at least it isn't the same pull knob on the current models. Those are a pain when the seats are folded forward and they're squished up against the part in front of it.
I don't see tether anchor points on the backs of the seats. Those are probably still located in the roof at the back of the cargo area.
lmacrae@mediaone.net
My thoughts:
1) What is with the shifter? How is a manual tranny going to work?
2) 160Hp isn't goign to cut it in this class anymore. Look where it generates its HP, 6200 RPM. When was the last time anyone went that high?
3) Pass through makes the CR-V just like every other...minivan.
4) Styling is way too bland and not evolutionary enough. I agree with the bumper issue as well.
Yes, Honda did include the moonroof in the design, but sheesh, I am disappointed.
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/story.asp?id=B7185F85-4FEB-41AE-B7EE-5B57D7288A13
For me that answer is not so clear cut, especially knowing that a new Forester will arrive on these shores 3-4 months after this new CRV arrives.
Here's what I like:
• The styling. I think it's an improvement on an already neat looking car.
• The increased power. I wish it were more, but I think(?) I could live with this engine.
• Interior upgrades. From what I can see, I like most, if not all of the changes.
• Increased refinement. Always Honda's ace in the hole. I'm sure this car will be more comfortable on trips.
What I don't like:
• The rear door. It appears to be better than the last model, but as I said in previous posts, I prefer a liftgate with the spare mounted under the floor.
• I had hoped for a 5-speed automatic, and a 6-speed manual—with a creeper 1st. gear like the old mid-80's Civic Real-Time 4WD wagon had. I'm sure it was due to a cost issue, but I had hoped Honda would have found a way around it.
• Real-Time 4WD. As I had mentioned many, many posts ago, I prefer the full-time AWD found on Subarus, to an on-demand system found here. I know there are some people here who say "in the real world, it doesn't make any difference." I respectfully disagree with that.
Unknowns
• Details. This where the devil lives.
• Towing. I hope it's at least 2000 pounds.
• Roof rack rating. I hope it's at least 100 pounds. 150 pounds would be perfect.
• Haven't seen it in person, or driven one.
So, I haven't given up on it—I'm just not yet convinced.
Bob