Honda is unlikely to drop a V6 in CR-V unless they feel the need to do so (i.e. to compete).
As for comparing CR-V to other 'V6' equipped SUVs, my suggestion would be to go and test drive one and not dismiss it based on lacking two cylinders. You may have a pleasant surprise in store, or may not. Good luck.
No one can claim to give anyone good advice without knowing what your priorities are. What are you planning to do with this vehicle; what kind of performance are you hoping for? The best vehicle will change depending on your answer. If you haven't been in the car market in a while, don't be too quick to turn your nose up at a 4-cylinder engine without at least test-driving one -- Honda's four-bangers of today are more than a match for many of the V6's of the early 90s
Something else to think about: So far, there are ZERO in-depth reviews of the 2002 CR-V out there. Sure, some have taken quick rides in the thing, but probably 95% of the stuff we're reading is obviously lifted from Honda media materials. We won't have any real impressions until an auto journalist gets to borrow one for a whole week and take it to the track, on a road trip, etc.
Last month's long-term report on the Tribute mentions that Edmunds recently did a mini-SUV comparison test. Can anyone from Edmunds tell us when that will be released, and whether an '01 or '02 CR-V would be in that roundup?
We test drove a '99 CRV and, while we appreciated it's "power" came away unsure about what to do, hence the wait until now situation. We also own a Hyundai ('96 Accent) and have been pleasantly surprised w/ its offerings. Sure, it has NO guts, but my wife loves it and it's been on several long-distance vacation drives w/ no problems. Somewhat cheapy plastic interior, but we're most interested in "more bang for your buck" cars. Hyundai and XL-7 have faired very well in crash tests too. We'll have to test drive all of them (most recent models), of course.
A V6, by itself, is not a good reason to choose a specific SUV. The Santa Fe has an optional V6, but it's also very heavy, and the result is sluggish acceleration and poor mileage. Is that what you're really looking for?
That's why I like efficient 4 bangers. You can get over 20mpg routinely and still keep up with about half of the V6s in the small SUV class. I like what Honda did - a relatively big 4 cylinder packed with good technology and efficiency.
Don't just look at the number of cylinders. You have to factor hp, torque, curb weight, gearing, and aerodynamics. Better yet - test drive them yourself, and don't rule out the fun-to-drive 4 bangers in the class (RAV4, Forester, and, it appears, the CR-V). Anyone else notice that link? Forester was quickest and best handling, even with two V6 competitors.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that the CR-V will easily outrun the 180+hp mills in the Santa Fe, XTerra, and the XL7, since they are so heavy. One caveat - with a manual tranny (hey, at least it's offered). The auto will be about even with those.
The Liberty and Escape are the only ones with a significant advantage. The Liberty is heavy but 215hp goes a long way. The Escape is light so its 200hp are likely the quickest you'll find in this class.
At least until the 2004 Forester Turbo arrives. That'll be positively yummy.
Abmrknox - It's impossible to make a blanket statement like, "the CR-V is the best small SUV for everyone". We'd need more information about how you are going to use it before anyone can make a recommendation (well, a good recommendation anyway).
If your top concerns are reliability, safety, fuel efficiency, cargo and passenger space, and low emissions, then the CR-V is a good choice. If you're headed off-road or want to drag race, then take a look at something else.
Looking at the results, I was surprised the CR-V got a better rating than the Forester in the off-roading contest.
ambmrnox- If you look at the torque ratings for the V-6 equipped Santa Fe, you'll see that it makes roughly only 10 more lb-ft of torque than the new engine from the CR-V. Take into consideration that it's also a rather heavy vehicle when equipped with a V-6 and the AWD system.
. . . those head-to-head tests were first published in either late '99 or very early in '00. (That article helped me decide on purchasing a CR-V in Feb. 2000.) Back then, the XTerra used in the test was a pre-production unit, and the Escape and Tribute were nothing but hype.
Edmunds' August '01 long-term update of the Tribute says, "having recently participated in a six-vehicle mini-SUV comparison test, Liz can say unequivocally that, of the vehicles tested, the Tribute/Escape twosome is the most fun to drive on road."
That tells me that there's an update (that includes the Tribute/Escape) coming. I also have a hard time believing that a writer whose works are published on the Internet would use the word "recently" for something that happened a year-and-a-half ago!
Something else to be jealous about. I didn't see this before, but the JDM CR-V has an optional rear view camera. This Aussie article mentions it at the bottom. However, they also must make do with the 2.0L engine for now.
Here's another Aussie article ranking the CR-V and Civic among the most popular and reliable vehicles down there.
Well, you've stumped Drew and me. You're right - there's probably a new one in the works. We don't usually get advance warning of the editorial schedule so no guarantees. But we'll post the link as soon as we see it (assuming Varmit doesn't beat us to it ). Steve Host Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Slugline - FWIW, Liz isn't listed as a contributing author in the 99 comparo. However there were 6 vehicles and only five authors listed. Maybe they had to tow the Kia?
Liz also mentions that there were 6 vehicles in the "recent" comparison (exactly as many as there are in the old article). The field has grown to include the Liberty, Santa Fe, and possibly the Vue in addition to the original 6. Edmunds might even include the XL-7 for good measure. Anyway, there are more than 6 newsworthy competitors out there now.
varmit, now that was mean. Don't go picking on the little Kia ;-) FWIW though, there are are a fair number of those popping up around my area since a Kia dealership is only 15 minutes away. The most perculiar thing I noticed was that the brake dust was copper in colour! The front wheels of one of these vehicles were just covered in copper dust.
Drew Host Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Has anyone experiences or heard of issues or service bulletins with CRV paint, (or more precisely, the clearcoat over the paint)?. I have a '99 with green paint. Since new, the clearcoat has scratched extremely easily no matter how careful I am, (when scratched, it shows as white over the green paint). I have owned many vehicles before the CRV, but none have scratched near as easily. It is as if the clearcoat did not harden all the way. Your knowledge or experience (especially owners of the forest green CRVs from 1999 onward) is much appreciated.
Juice - I'm not sure about the XL-7. It does fit into the general price range, but it's "one of those things that's not like the others". IMHO, it falls into the same no man's land as the Aztek.
The Vue should be included, but I don't think they have many pre-production models available. If Slugline is correct and Liz is referring to a new comparison, then they would have needed a test mule last month at the latest. I recently read an article on the Vue (R&T maybe?) and was kind of dissapointed. I'd read a lot of positive press about it earlier, but the production models looked weak on paper. I'll reserve final judgement until we see in-depth reviews.
Dfielding - It's a Honda thing. Actually a number of manufacturers use thin paint. Folks have reported that it is a "Japanese thing". Based on what I've read in these and other forums, the paint that Honda uses is durable with regard to weather damage and cracking, but it doesn't hold up well when scratched.
XL7 is a truck, but then again so is the Liberty. Last time they included trucks and car-based models.
Vue has potential, since the V6 in the L series is peppy. It just better be lighter than the Santa Fe, or you again get a slow car that isn't very efficient (no thanks). Looks are kind of odd, from seeing it in person at auto shows, I much prefer the Vibe/Matrix.
New paints are no longer solvent-based and they're trying to figure out how to make them as durable as before without harming the environment. They still have work to do, IMO.
You know how some cars look better in person than they do from the pictures on the internet or in the magazines? The Vue isn't one of those cars.
I saw this car at the auto show this year and yes, it's just as ugly in real life. But I have to admit, it was a large vehicle.
But it can turn out to be a hit. Who woulda thunk all these people would be buying the Jeep Liberty? I certainly didn't- and look how the sales numbers proved me wrong.
Car and Driver October has Vue preview. It does have V6 5 speed auto. If quality is good like other Saturns, it will be a strong competitor.
yes, I just added VUE to my list , I don't care for the look but think it is average, not repulsive. One problem, I received Saturn literature, it is apparent Saturn is targeting women, groceries.
In view of the probs with new paints (or clearcoat?) is it better to stay with light colors - white, silver? Seems if scratches go white there'd be less contrast with the base coat, therefore less noticeable.
I hope that Edmunds does two rankings: one for people who actually take their cars off-road (which the Liberty will probably win with the X Terra a close second) and one for the other 99% SUV owners who just want something that handles well on the road and snow (which the Escape/Tribute will win unless they factor in the reliability issue).
Personally, I want to buy a CRV. If it weren't for the many reliability problems of the Escape and its gas guzzling engine, I'd go for it, but I really don't want the engine to stall on me on the freeway, no thanks!
BTW, has anybody preordered a CRV yet? I'm wondering what kind of pricing people are getting.
. . . vehicles in an updated head-to-head test; C&D managed to round up 11 earlier this year. A really good time for the press to do one would be in late winter/early spring. You would then have several anticipated 2002 competitors introduced (or redesigned) and ready to rumble -- CR-V, XTerra, VUE, Freelander, Liberty. They could take on the sophomore class of the XL7, RAV4, SantaFe, Tribute and Escape . . . and any of the older designs of their choosing. What a fight that would be!
BTW, the Freelander is evidence that *someone* thinks that there's a market for an upscale mini-SUV in the $25-$27K. It will be interesting to see how it will be received in the USA.
What about the highlander, I know the magazines put it in with the Explorer and the midsized suvs but personally I think it more of an upscale mini, its smaller the the other midsized, it has less power, less towing, and seating for 3 in back is too tight.
H1vc - Since when is a midsize SUV supposed to have a third row of seats? The Highlander has about 80 cuft of cargo space. That's more than the JGC and on par with everything else. It used to be that mini-SUVs had a whopping 90 HP, space for a suitcase, and maybe enough room for a small child in the back. This class is rapidly outgrowing its britches as it is.
The Dodge Durango, Acura MDX, Suzuki XL-7 and Ford Explorer came out with 3rd rows.
htvc-The V-6 in the Highlander is the same one used in the Lexus RX300. That engine has more hp than the Ford Explorer's V-6, the old Chevy Blazer and the Suzuki XL-7, as well as Mercedes's ML320, and on par with BMW's X5 3.0i.
Highlander doesn't have an optional engine. It might have more power but what about torque and rpm, especially useful when towing, and I never said a third row seat just seating for 3 in the SECOND row is too tight and no I'm not very tall or fat, and we we were not wearing huge winter coats when we sat in it, other midsized aren't a lot more roomier but still roomier. Whats a JGC?
The Highlander comes standard with a 4-cylinder engine while offering the RX300's V6 as an option.
If you need something for towing, I wouldn't recommend shopping in the cross-over SUV department. Similarly, if you want to off-road, you should really stay away from the cross-over SUV department.
Re 3rd row: I stand corrected. Still, I think that the Highlander is plenty big enough for the mid-size class. "JGC" stands for Jeep Grand Cherokee. That and the Rodeo/Passport, the Blazer (2001), Montero Sport, and Axiom are all about the same size as the Highlander.
There is a trend in automotive design and marketing to make each new model bigger than the one before. Pretty soon midsize SUVs will dwarf today's Suburban. Minivans will compete with RVs. In many dimensions, the new CR-V is bigger than the 90s Blazer and Grand Cherokee. It even costs about the same.
In this case, comparing the Highlander to the CR-V is not a far stretch. But it's because the CR-V is a big little SUV, not because the Highlander is small.
My fault, I meant to type that the Highlander doesn't offer an engine bigger than the 6. I don't think that future mids will dwarf todays burbs. If someone asks me for my def. of a midsize suv I'd have to say it have to carry 5 ADULTS comfortably, good cargo capacity behind 2nd row, payload capacity that won't be easily overloaded, ability to tow around 5klbs, and average to high off road performance.
One last plug for a while for Mark Roberts Honda in OKlahoma. You can order for $316 over invoice, 1-800-375-less, ask for John Page. He is nice guy. Web site is www.autoinvoice.com. I will be out of touch for some time as I am now a reservist on active duty (Army). I had to cancel my HOnda Odyssey order due to my gray future and wanted to make it up to John and get you all in on this once price dealer. If you are anywhere near them the deals are real. Do not let the terrorists win by allowing worry and doubt. INKY
There is an easy fix to your problem. The white lines you see can be removed by buffing up with a decent scratch remover. Now, if the metal shows through the paint, then it won't work.
i have to agree mini utes are getting too FAT. I wanted a decent small suv. I wanted a honda so my choice was limited to CR-V. Had honda offered the HR-V, which is available world wide, i would have opted for it, rather than CR-V. the new CR-V looks bigger, but it might just be an illusion, the new RAV4 "looks" bigger but it not much bigger than the old RAV4. I would have bought the new RAV4 is Toyota dealers were not so stubborn, i will not pay $24K for a stripper RAV4 (with quick order package) I would have paid $15K for a mid level HR-V though.
I might not pay US$24k for a RAV4 with QO pkg either. But I got one, with 4WD and auto trans, for just under $21K, and this was in January '01, when demand was high (new model, snowy weather). The sticker was under $22k.
If you want something light, what about a Toyota Matrix? Though I was disappointed to hear the AWD version will get just 120hp. Still, the price will be lower than the RAV4. I find them more stylish than any SUV. Wagons are back. Protoge5 and Lexus SportCross are also gorgeous.
diploid: I fully agree. I have a soft spot in my heart for Saturn, but the Vue is an eye sore. I think they just tried too hard.
Freelander looks good. It's toughest rival will be Ford's own Escape, with more power and space for less money. It's not like the Brits are known for reliability (they invented intermittent wipers - by accident!), so that's a non-issue.
Have you guys priced a Highlander? As it typical for Toyota, everything costs extra. They have low starting prices, but for a stripped 4 banger FWD non-ABS. Equip a V6 with the basics and you're well into the $30s.
Last weekend I put a deposit down on a 2002 CR-V. I did not discuss pricing with them. I will hopefully take delivery sometime in December and will know more about what prices people are getting at that time. I would usually drive a vehicle before I order or buy one, but I almost bought a 2000 CR-V two years ago, the only draw back being the power with an automatic. The new 2002 seems to have remedied that problem, plus added many other nice features without adding much weight. I also have sworn off all manufacturers other than Honda/Acura, because of too many negative mechanical experiences with other makes. Add that to the fact that my family is expanding again soon and it seemed time to trade in my 95 Integra for a more "family" like car. I am hoping the new CR-V will prove to be a fun car to drive as well.
Yes, there is some risk of being at their mercy, but if the price is outrageous I can back out and get my deposit back (I believe that is a law here in MN). It is through a salesperson that I have bought several vehicles from, and he has always been very fair in the past. Also, I assume that buying a new Honda design within the first several months will mean paying a higher price than waiting a year or two to buy the same vehicle. I don't have the luxury of a one price dealer like the one in Oklahoma close by. Most Honda dealers here in MN can sell their CR-V's quickly because of our weather conditions. If the pricing history of the first CR-V is any indication most dealers will not sell them at much (or any) discount if demand is high. Demand is one of the reasons that I orderd one now. Experience has proved that with some Honda/Acura intros dealers can get sold out for several months in advance and I don't want to wait until spring to get the vehicle. Time will tell whether the demand will be as high as the first CR-V or more like the 2001 Civic, which was being advertised at discounts very early in its product cycle. I'll keep you updated as I find out more info.
Good luck with your CR-V - can't wait to hear your update. I've seen pics on Honda's Japanese website and it looks really good - more substantial than the current model but still recognizably a CR-V. I prefer it to the RAV4, whose styling is nice but a lil too radical.
I could NOT log onto Edmunds for some reason, and couldn't even read the discussions.
Anyways, the Toyota Matrix looks very odd. I'd much rather settle for the Pontiac Vibe.
I think it's this month's C&D that has vehicle profiles of the Vue and the Vibe. It's a little interesting. I really can't say anything more since I only perused the Saturn Vue article (the editor seemed to liked it).
Interesting to see that this CR-V retains many of the original's styling cues, and represents a true evolution of the model line. Honda hadn't done this in years. The Civic looks vastly different with every iteration; the Accord the same case. Perhaps this is an indication of Honda's faith in the CR-V's original styling. Not to mention its sales figures.
Comments
As for comparing CR-V to other 'V6' equipped SUVs, my suggestion would be to go and test drive one and not dismiss it based on lacking two cylinders. You may have a pleasant surprise in store, or may not. Good luck.
Something else to think about: So far, there are ZERO in-depth reviews of the 2002 CR-V out there. Sure, some have taken quick rides in the thing, but probably 95% of the stuff we're reading is obviously lifted from Honda media materials. We won't have any real impressions until an auto journalist gets to borrow one for a whole week and take it to the track, on a road trip, etc.
Last month's long-term report on the Tribute mentions that Edmunds recently did a mini-SUV comparison test. Can anyone from Edmunds tell us when that will be released, and whether an '01 or '02 CR-V would be in that roundup?
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/43920/page007.html
The Tribute/Escape, Santa Fe, nor the XL-7 were included this time though, but very likely may be in the next comparo.
Hope this helps!
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
That's why I like efficient 4 bangers. You can get over 20mpg routinely and still keep up with about half of the V6s in the small SUV class. I like what Honda did - a relatively big 4 cylinder packed with good technology and efficiency.
Don't just look at the number of cylinders. You have to factor hp, torque, curb weight, gearing, and aerodynamics. Better yet - test drive them yourself, and don't rule out the fun-to-drive 4 bangers in the class (RAV4, Forester, and, it appears, the CR-V). Anyone else notice that link? Forester was quickest and best handling, even with two V6 competitors.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that the CR-V will easily outrun the 180+hp mills in the Santa Fe, XTerra, and the XL7, since they are so heavy. One caveat - with a manual tranny (hey, at least it's offered). The auto will be about even with those.
The Liberty and Escape are the only ones with a significant advantage. The Liberty is heavy but 215hp goes a long way. The Escape is light so its 200hp are likely the quickest you'll find in this class.
At least until the 2004 Forester Turbo arrives. That'll be positively yummy.
-juice
If your top concerns are reliability, safety, fuel efficiency, cargo and passenger space, and low emissions, then the CR-V is a good choice. If you're headed off-road or want to drag race, then take a look at something else.
ambmrnox- If you look at the torque ratings for the V-6 equipped Santa Fe, you'll see that it makes roughly only 10 more lb-ft of torque than the new engine from the CR-V. Take into consideration that it's also a rather heavy vehicle when equipped with a V-6 and the AWD system.
Edmunds' August '01 long-term update of the Tribute says, "having recently participated in a six-vehicle mini-SUV comparison test, Liz can say unequivocally that, of the vehicles tested, the Tribute/Escape twosome is the most fun to drive on road."
That tells me that there's an update (that includes the Tribute/Escape) coming. I also have a hard time believing that a writer whose works are published on the Internet would use the word "recently" for something that happened a year-and-a-half ago!
Here's another Aussie article ranking the CR-V and Civic among the most popular and reliable vehicles down there.
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
:-)
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Slugline - FWIW, Liz isn't listed as a contributing author in the 99 comparo. However there were 6 vehicles and only five authors listed. Maybe they had to tow the Kia?
Liz also mentions that there were 6 vehicles in the "recent" comparison (exactly as many as there are in the old article). The field has grown to include the Liberty, Santa Fe, and possibly the Vue in addition to the original 6. Edmunds might even include the XL-7 for good measure. Anyway, there are more than 6 newsworthy competitors out there now.
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
They will likely include the Escape, the new CR-V, RAV4, XL7, Santa Fe, and the Liberty. Add the Vue if it's already out by then.
-juice
The Vue should be included, but I don't think they have many pre-production models available. If Slugline is correct and Liz is referring to a new comparison, then they would have needed a test mule last month at the latest. I recently read an article on the Vue (R&T maybe?) and was kind of dissapointed. I'd read a lot of positive press about it earlier, but the production models looked weak on paper. I'll reserve final judgement until we see in-depth reviews.
Vue has potential, since the V6 in the L series is peppy. It just better be lighter than the Santa Fe, or you again get a slow car that isn't very efficient (no thanks). Looks are kind of odd, from seeing it in person at auto shows, I much prefer the Vibe/Matrix.
New paints are no longer solvent-based and they're trying to figure out how to make them as durable as before without harming the environment. They still have work to do, IMO.
-juice
I saw this car at the auto show this year and yes, it's just as ugly in real life. But I have to admit, it was a large vehicle.
But it can turn out to be a hit. Who woulda thunk all these people would be buying the Jeep Liberty? I certainly didn't- and look how the sales numbers proved me wrong.
yes, I just added VUE to my list , I don't care for the look but think it is average, not repulsive. One problem, I received Saturn literature, it is apparent Saturn is targeting women, groceries.
Personally, I want to buy a CRV. If it weren't for the many reliability problems of the Escape and its gas guzzling engine, I'd go for it, but I really don't want the engine to stall on me on the freeway, no thanks!
BTW, has anybody preordered a CRV yet? I'm wondering what kind of pricing people are getting.
BTW, the Freelander is evidence that *someone* thinks that there's a market for an upscale mini-SUV in the $25-$27K. It will be interesting to see how it will be received in the USA.
htvc-The V-6 in the Highlander is the same one used in the Lexus RX300. That engine has more hp than the Ford Explorer's V-6, the old Chevy Blazer and the Suzuki XL-7, as well as Mercedes's ML320, and on par with BMW's X5 3.0i.
If you need something for towing, I wouldn't recommend shopping in the cross-over SUV department. Similarly, if you want to off-road, you should really stay away from the cross-over SUV department.
There is a trend in automotive design and marketing to make each new model bigger than the one before. Pretty soon midsize SUVs will dwarf today's Suburban. Minivans will compete with RVs. In many dimensions, the new CR-V is bigger than the 90s Blazer and Grand Cherokee. It even costs about the same.
In this case, comparing the Highlander to the CR-V is not a far stretch. But it's because the CR-V is a big little SUV, not because the Highlander is small.
INKY
diploid: I fully agree. I have a soft spot in my heart for Saturn, but the Vue is an eye sore. I think they just tried too hard.
Freelander looks good. It's toughest rival will be Ford's own Escape, with more power and space for less money. It's not like the Brits are known for reliability (they invented intermittent wipers - by accident!), so that's a non-issue.
Have you guys priced a Highlander? As it typical for Toyota, everything costs extra. They have low starting prices, but for a stripped 4 banger FWD non-ABS. Equip a V6 with the basics and you're well into the $30s.
-juice
The front struts almost don't matter in a SUV, though. The CR-V will do much better.
Bad timing, though. For all automakers.
-juice
Anyways, the Toyota Matrix looks very odd. I'd much rather settle for the Pontiac Vibe.
I think it's this month's C&D that has vehicle profiles of the Vue and the Vibe. It's a little interesting. I really can't say anything more since I only perused the Saturn Vue article (the editor seemed to liked it).
The Vibe received a good review.
Interesting to see that this CR-V retains many of the original's styling cues, and represents a true evolution of the model line. Honda hadn't done this in years. The Civic looks vastly different with every iteration; the Accord the same case. Perhaps this is an indication of Honda's faith in the CR-V's original styling. Not to mention its sales figures.
Way to go Honda