Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

2001 - 2006 Honda CR-Vs



  • I'm considering buying a 2006 4WD CR/V EX. I've heard that it "requires" 5W20 oil - my questions are:
    1) Is that accurate?
    2) Where the heck can you buy 5W20 (the dealer priced me out their oil and filter and it would be nearly $35/oil change just for the supplies!). And can you easily buy a filter from someplace besides honda?
    3) Does 5W20 really wear out your engine sooner?

    Last question - are people seeing good MPG with low-grade gasoline or do you need to use mid- or premium?

  • joecarnutjoecarnut Posts: 215
    Especially if fuel economy is up.
    It appears much more aerodynamic although on VTEC they mention the weight goes up some. Its possible most of that room they supposedly cut down is on the room line. The spyshot of the white one looked smaller, but the other spyshot with the blue crv looks larger.
    Very disappointed with the rear bumper placement though.
    But hope some of the reports are true about it being a smoother ride.
    I actually think it looks somewhat cool and the hatchback is a positive point for me.
    But with gas prices the way they are, it seems a car in the 30+ mpg range is almost a guzzler these days. :confuse:
  • wheelz4wheelz4 Posts: 569
    I just find it odd that Honda seems to have completely changed the Cr-V's mission. If they wanted an awd/sport-hatch/Matrix-Vibe fighter, they should have created one, not canibalized the CR-V. Maybe they see their competition as Hyundai's Tuscon, not Toyota's Rav-4. I guess they'll have to do a spin on "less-is-more" for their ad campaign.
    As an aside....I finally had a chance to drive the new Rav-4 the other day (V6 Sport). I would say that the new Rav4 is pretty much the equal of the current CR-V in terms of space, though it doesn't have the mini-van-like walkthrough between the front seats. It was very solid, quiet and the V6 was incredibly smooth and effortless. With decent fuel economy from both the 4 and the 6 and a choice of 5 or 7 seats in a just-right-sized package, this seems to be the one to beat now in this segement. It's almost as if Honda is throwing in the towel in this segement, or maybe putting the CR-V into a different segement (small, sporty AWD hatch) with the new CR-V having less room, less power(w.r.t. weight), less ground clearance etc. Would it have been that hard for Honda to stay true to the original & 2nd gen CR-V's mission with the new RDX/CR-V platform than to just put out a less powerfull version of the RDX with a Honda badge?
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 8,862
    Also another point is that has Honda made the right Decision to make the Honda Crv in America, Honda has biult a good Reputation making good car's comming from Japan, is all that going be lost.

    Well many folks were concerned about the current CRV being made in the UK for the US market. AFAIK, quality has not been an issue.

    Honda has been manufacturing vehicles in the US for over 25 years. IMHO, there is little difference in quality because Honda has a standardized manufacturing system. They could put a plant almost anywhere in the world and turn out the same level of quality.
  • fnamowiczfnamowicz Posts: 194
    I have a 2003 CR-V/EX. 5W20 (is recommended) I use it.
    Do not go to a dealer. this oil is readily available.
    Any quick service oil change place will charge you 25 to 30 bucks for this service.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Wait until you have a chance to see it in person. I'm pretty good at examining pictures and determining what it will look like in person. I have a pretty good imagination that way... probably due to my studies in studio art. Many who do not have similar skills are often surprised by vehicles in the flesh.

    Besides, maybe Honda gold-plated the dash and is going to sell the vehicles for under $20K.

    Anyway, wait and see what they offer and also what the competition is doing before you make a decision about trading. At this point in time, the new RAV4 does look like the best vehicle for fans of the older CR-Vs.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Nope. Honda keeps winning awards for reliability over in the UK. Most of the vehicles sold there are built there (including the CR-V).

    The nationality of the workers at the plant has far less to do with reliability than the training they receive and the experience of the staff there. The plants in the US have been in operation long enough that I would not be worried about them.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    "Especially if fuel economy is up."

    Doubtful. At least, not significantly. We might see 22-28 mpg.

    "It appears much more aerodynamic although on VTEC they mention the weight goes up some."

    Not really. Aerodynamics is are not something which can be seen. The current CR-V has a drag of .34 while the much more aerodynamic-looking CX-7 has a drag of .35 Co.
  • vcarrerasvcarreras Posts: 247
    Hope we get the diesel and mileage should be in the 30's.

    New pictures of the 07. I like it. da/more-2007-honda-cr-v-spy-photos
  • lzclzc Posts: 483
    Thanks for posting the picture link.

    I note the commentary says the new CR-V will be built on the same platform as the Acura RDX, which I've read is the TL. I've also seen comments that the CR-V will be built on the new Civic platform.

    Anyone know which is correct?
  • vcarrerasvcarreras Posts: 247
    It will be built on the RDX platform. If Honda builds anything on the Civic platform it will be the Stream or Latitude for the NA market.
  • lirlir Posts: 81
    Wow, it looks super small. It won't compete with the RAV4 - no V6 or 3rd row. One good thing though: spare tire is tucked away. Wonder if they'll give a full size spare. Doesn't look like a lot will fit in the new CRV - bummer.
  • wheelz4wheelz4 Posts: 569
    The last couple of spypics from worldcarfans/b priddy are actually not too bad, though the smiley grill is not really visible, as the vehicle is black and there is a fake
    'tinfoil' grill. One thing I failed to mention in my comments on the's not particularily stylish. Kinda plain in person and doesn't really look worth the change they're charging for it. Back to the CR-V...
    As the RD-X it's based on is virtually the same size as BMW's X3, it may not seem that much smaller than the current CR-V....and should be around 180" in length.
    The X3 manages to carve out 70 cu ft. or so of cargo room, so even though the RD-X is listed at around 60, maybe the CR-V, through more efficient packaging/different roofline etc. can eke out around 70 cu.ft. too. Ground clearance from the photos doesn't look all that compromised, so as varmint says, lets wait for the final specs. I'm still kinda hoping for a third row, even though all reports say the CR-V will remain a 5 seater. If the Rav4/Mazda5/Kia Carens etc. can all get third rows in their vehicles, all of which are about 180" in length, give or take an inch, then there's no reason why Honda can't. And if they have some fuel economy magic up their sleeve as well, that certainly wouldn't hurt.
  • drive62drive62 Posts: 637
    At this point in time, the new RAV4 does look like the best vehicle for fans of the older CR-Vs.

    Because of cargo space only? That seems to be your biggest gripe with the new CR-V (which isn't even out yet).

    So which RAV4 is it? The $30K V6 or the $21K 4 cylinder stripper model?
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    It is too soon to say about the specs, but there are pretty good numbers being rumored out there on the web. I say they are good because they match up well with what we've seen of the RDX and also what we've seen in the CR-V spy pictures.

    Anyway, they peg max cargo capacity at a measly 61 cu.ft. I've seen how the RDX seats fold (and the parts of the bench which cannot be folded). And those seats look like they were taken from a less expensive vehicle then covered with leather. I've also taken measurements of the RDX's cargo bay. Combine that with the sloped roof-line we see in the photos and I think 61 cu.ft. is unfortunately correct.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    There are a number of small SUVs on the market which are reliable (RAV4, Element, CR-V, and Forester).

    There are a number of small SUVs with good cargo capacity (Escape, CR-V, Element, VUE, and Equinox).

    Pretty much all of them offer safe, stable handling.

    Several do well in crash tests and offer a good list of safety features.

    Some offer good performance.

    Some offer good fuel economy.

    The CR-V was the only one which scored at the top of the heap in pretty much all categories. It was well-balanced. Nowadays, when I look at vehicles on the small SUV market, the new RAV4 is the one at the top of all the lists. The new CR-V does not look like it will be as balanced as the first two generations.

    To answer your question, I'd recommend a mid level RAV4 with the I4 to most buyers. While Toyota's nickle-n-dime approach to features can be maddening, it is possible to find a middle ground between loaded and stripped.
  • lirlir Posts: 81
    My answer to why the RAV4 over the CRV when I bought in April. Drove both, really liked them almost equally. What I liked about the RAV more was the interior, the ease in which those back seats just fold down with a pull of a lever. I got the Limited I4/2 wheel drive (didn't need the 4 wheel drive) with all the bells and whistles for 23,600...I would have gotten the SE CRV for 24,300. So in the end the RAV was cheaper, and it gets 2 mpg more. Mind you, I am a loyal Honda owner (I have 3 other cars). This is my first Toyota, so we'll see. We may eventually trade in one of our cars for a 2006 CRV.
  • jeffworkjeffwork Posts: 20
    Yuck. Been waiting for the CR-V before deciding on it, Rav-4 (which I like a lot) or the current CR-V. This takes the new CR-V out of consideration for me
  • joecarnutjoecarnut Posts: 215
    I still contend it has promise. I think it looks great actually. Nice new pixs.
    But these days my favorites are filled up with alt fuel folders and the low 30 mpgs range doesn't sound as good as it used to.
    Who knows, in a year or two it just may be the Fit Hybrid that I'll end up with. An affordable hybrid at last, or at least in theory.
  • drive62drive62 Posts: 637
    I would have gotten the SE CRV for 24,300.

    Your market must be an anomoly. SE's can be had here for $22K.
  • wheelz4wheelz4 Posts: 569 the RDX's weight. It's pretty close to 4,000 lbs, which is porky, but bearable when you have a 240 hp turbo to get you around but not so if you only have a 170hp 4.
    Given the new CR-V's apparent shrinkage, you'd think it would be even lighter. Also of note...the RDX's mileage doesn't even come close to the Rav4's V6, let alone the 4.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I doubt tow ratings will go up, the RDX can only tow 1500 lbs. Try a V6 RAV4 - 3500 lbs. Then again, installing the wiring harness is a nightmare, you have to take the whole interior apart. Foresters can tow 2400 lbs, and the harness is plug-n-play easy.

    As for the spy pics, seems like there is a lot less glass overall, especially around the D-pillar. That's an unfortunate trend that has caught on with the entire industry. Chopped cars are in, but it's harder to see out of them!

    Front headlights on that one look like the last generation Civic to me. They hid the underbite. Still no clear, full pics.

  • vcarrerasvcarreras Posts: 247
    You mention the apparent shrinkage of the 07 CR-V..could this actually be because you are not measuring the added length from the spare tire on the back? The new CR-V might be the same size as the present one. Anyone know?
  • drive62drive62 Posts: 637
    I'd recommend a mid level RAV4 with the I4 to most buyers.

    So they should spend about $25k for a RAV4 (try and find a RAV4 for $21k) vs. less for a CR-V for a few cubic feet of storage space?? I think you underestimate the value of a few cubic feet of storage in this segment. It's not like the CR-V is a Mini with no place to put a suitcase.

    To paraphrase one of our favorite people, you are all over the 'net saying how the new CR-V will flop (I know this market segment. This new CR-V reminds me of the old RAV4 and the Forester. Both have failed to lead the segment. Unless we are grossly misinformed about it, this CR-V will flop. .), huge loss in sales, etc. Sure hope you are right, as your rep as the CR-V expert is on the line
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,798
    I'm considering buying a 2006 4WD CR/V EX. I've heard that it "requires" 5W20 oil - my questions are:
    1) Is that accurate?
    2) Where the heck can you buy 5W20 (the dealer priced me out their oil and filter and it would be nearly $35/oil change just for the supplies!). And can you easily buy a filter from someplace besides honda?
    3) Does 5W20 really wear out your engine sooner?

    Last question - are people seeing good MPG with low-grade gasoline or do you need to use mid- or premium?


    Never had a problem finding 5W-20, not every brand has it, only the top quality producers have it. So, there is no cheapo brand of 5W-20, but Exxon (superflo) Mobil, Mobil 1, Motorcraft (Ford), Penzoil, Quaker, Castrol all have 5W-20.

    I use Mobil 1 0W-20 for better winter start up protection, and Honda OEM filter.

    You only need to use regular gas in it. It is not designed to take advantage of the higher octane (low compression engine).
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,798
    At this point in time, the new RAV4 does look like the best vehicle for fans of the older CR-Vs.

    No manual in any RAV4's. No manual = no sale for me.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    A poster on another forum has published specs of dubious origin, but (perhaps unfortunately) they might quite a bit of sense. The specs include a 200-250 lbs increase over the current model. That does make sense given the added weight of the ACE body structure.

    For the record, this new CR-V is about the same length, but appears to be a good 2-3" wider. That could explain some of the weight. Though it is also rumored to be shorter.
  • lirlir Posts: 81
    Back in April, the invoice price on Edmund's was 24,000 for the top of the line CRV. My dealer agreed to $300 over that invoice. I thought it was a great deal at the time. After reading the real deals people are getting, I'm glad I didn't go for it. I got a comparable vehicle for less $ so I'm happy.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    It's not like the old RAV4, Forester, Grand Vitara, Sportage, or new Tucson were Minis, either. But each of them has been a second tier player in large part because they were too small.

    But you're mistaken about cargo space being my only reason for forecasting flop status for the new CR-V. It's also ugly.

    Right now, price is the best reason I have for recommending the current CR-V over the RAV4. If buyers cannot afford the RAV4, the CR-V is a strong alternative.

    I used to be able to say it offered the best total package.

    With the new CR-V looking smaller on the inside, heavier, and uglier, I cannot claim that it is a good overall package. And I see no reason to suspect the price will drop.

    I'm sure this new model will have improved safety, improved handling, and an improved interior. But if somebody comes to me asking for a smaller SUV with good handling, safety, and a nice interior, I'd probably direct them to the Subaru Forester.

    I got my rep as the CR-V expert by learning an awful lot about the vehicle. I know enough to recognize one of these :lemon: when I see it.
  • wheelz4wheelz4 Posts: 569
    The new CR-V may sell in spite of it's looks (wouldn't be the first time for a Honda), but like varmint said, it used to offer the best total package, and the jury is still out on that one until we get more details. The two glossy black almost totally unmasked spy photos actually don't look half bad....the nice set of alloys probably helps...but the 'face' is the big question mark (nice 'legs', shame about her 'face'?) Still not digging the new Odyssey, despite it's merit as one of the best minivans out there (looks like they took the old one and gave it some colagen injections to puff it out a bit)..sales of it don't seem to be hurting though. Still looking for that one vehicle that does it all...reasonably priced, good fuel economy, occasional seating for 6-7 and some awd capability. AWD, no ground clearance, though the price (even at list + all taxes, out the door, you'd be hardpressed to break 30 G's in Canada) is right. CR-V....out-the-door, closer to 35 G's here, has (had?) the ground clearance, AWD, fuel economy but no third row. I guess the new Rav4 comes the closest, though the only version with a third row in Canada goes out the door for over 43 G's (ouch!) If Mazda would "outback" the '5' and get rid of those silly side sills, that could be my ride (Mitsubishi did this with their Grandis). But, I digress....
    New Cr-V does show some promise, but I'll need to check out that 'face' and I'm not holding my breath for a third row. Current Stream is just over 179" (will we get the new Stream/Latitude?), so a third row is possible. As long as they do it like the Rav4 and give you a choice (I know there are those who hate 3rd rows)
Sign In or Register to comment.