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



  • So we're getting all worked about a rumor from a site that someone posted here?

    I think I'll play pessimist and wait until I actually see it on a Honda web site.

  • scnamescname Posts: 296
    maybe Honda will make VSA available. That would be a pleasant surprise.
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    Well, what else are we going to do? Sit here and talk about AWD systems? Check out the last 20 posts or so. It gets very mundane...

    At least with rumors, there's some excitement.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Release date...
    Sep 20 (Japan)

    Some features...
    * ABS is standard
    * Four wheel disc brakes standard in all models
    * Vehicle Stability Assist is optional (Auto only)
    * Electronic Brake Distribution is optional
    * Moonroof (EX)
    * NAVI is optional
    * Some improvements to RT4WD system

    Fullmark versus Performa...
    Earlier I thought that Fullmark was higher end model for CR-V. It isn't. Honda classified CRV based on styling and 'urban' requirements.

    Fullmark has a cleaner look, with hidden spare and color-keyed bumper, and rear license plate on the center of bumper. Available only with automatic transmission, with AWD being an option.

    Performa looks similar to what we will get with rear mounted spare and dark bumper ("activity" styling), and rear license plate to the left of the bumper. Available with AWD as standard feature, and automatic or manual transmission.

    About three years down the road, we would get an SE version for sure, and it should look pretty much like the Fullmark, except (perhaps) the spare still mounted on the rear.

    About seven exterior colors, with two interior color choices (sand and grey). Leather seating is optional (we may not get it until the SE model arrives).

    The engine choice is 2.0 liter DOHC i-VTEC for JDM (also powers the Stream in Japan, base RSX and upcoming Civic SI etc.).

    As far as America bound CR-V is concerned, it will have a 2.4 liter DOHC iVTEC with 160 HP and 162 lb.-ft (3600 rpm). 90% of the peak torque is available from 2000 rpm onwards (to about 6000 rpm). The redline is 6500 rpm, and a choice of 4-speed automatic and 5-speed manual. Those who would go for manual transmission will be in for a good surprise (short geared!).

    I doubt Honda will increase the engine output for CR-V beyond that, atleast for now. Even with this engine, and 3318 lb (fully loaded EX) curb weight, my estimate for 0-60 mph run with manual transmission is about 8.2 seconds (more than 1 second quicker than the previous CR-V).

    EPA gas mileage estimate (auto): 22 mpg/26 mpg
  • Well, seems we have been... ;)

    Or we could talk about the new color schemes...even though I like my Milano Red '99, the new Chianti Red with Saddle interior looks pretty cool. :D
  • jimxojimxo Posts: 423
    I spoke to my local dealer today and was quoted 3% over invoice when they arrive. This sounds reasonable, would this be a good price to pay?
  • heading out to beautiful barrie, ont. for the georgian college auto show this weekend. hope to see the new cr-v "up-close-&-personal"......will report back on monday.
  • tatu1tatu1 Posts: 50
    OK, I think you guys are being a little too literal. I think Honda was speaking in general terms, the surprise being the overall redesign. I don't think there is any specific "surprise" per say, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't expect anything other than what we've learned so far....
  • This week's Autoweek has a fairly lengthy review of the new CRV. Overall, they are very positive about the vehicle, including the larger engine, although they would still like to have seen a V-6 as an option.
  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    Robert - The American SE (or LE in Canada) is closer in spec to the D model than the Fullmark.

    90% of peak torque (145 ftlbs) is available from 2200 through 5250. Here's a home grown graph which is a bit clearer than the one provided by Honda and posted at the Digital Newsroom. Hmmm.. better make this a link.
    hp and torque

    Diploid - We could always chat about the spare tire location. =)

    jimxo - Yes. I would expect dealers to be gouging at first, so anything under MSRP is probably a decent price.
    Tatu - I'm with you. I suspect that the surprize is out of the bag and we're already looking at it.
  • tatu1tatu1 Posts: 50
    Well, just got an email from Honda telling me not to buy an SUV today because the CRV is coming out in November. The email has a link to the "Camp fire" site, but when I clicked on it, I couldn't get there....Doesn't matter, since I've already checked out the site, but it looks like Honda is starting their marketing.....
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    There's a small thumbnail of a black CR-V and I swear it looks like a mini- MDX.

    And yes, none of the links provided in the e-mail worked.
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    noticed that the Japanese website has a picture of a nav. system.

    I just hope Honda brings it all over here...the nav system, Fullmark, VSA, 3rd row...just bring it all.
  • I'm wondering if the steering wheel on the 2002 feels as weird as the 2001, which I found to be way too flat when I tried it. It made feel like I was driving an 18 wheeler... I hope that changed.
    On a separate note, I called Fremont Honda in SF Bay Area, and all they told me is that they require $1,000 deposit to get one of the first ones, and did not even talk about pricing. I sent two more e-mails asking about pricing, but they never answered... I then called Anderson Honda in Palo Alto and they won't commit to a price. They claim that they are waiting to see what the market price will be, and then will beat it. So, if the market price is $2K above MSRP, that would not be too good. Then again, I can't fault them for trying to squeeze as much as they can out of the CRV/client... Basically, if I can't get it for $500 less than MSRP when it comes out, I'll wait until I can. Unfortunately, with the economy in the tank, that should not be too hard.
  • scnamescname Posts: 296
    While the author writes it has power to merge on freeway and climb hills. He wouldn't mind a little more ooomph.

    Guess its not as good as Tribute in the speed department.
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    Last generation CR-V was a tad quicker to 60 than a 4-cylinder Tribute. Done in a 3-way comparison between the Rav4, CR-V & Tribute by AutoWorld Weekly.

    But yeah, a small V-6 would've been nice.

    I know, I know...they're afraid it's going to steal sales away from the upcoming Honda MDX-version.
  • Does anybody buy the 4-cylinder Tribute?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    While most of us will complain about Honda not offering a V6 in the CR-V, and it wouldn't take much for HOnda to do that, but the positives are that the 2.4 liter I-4 is almost as powerful as some 2.5 liter V6s, and given the right gearing, it could be torquier than them too! So I guess we were hoping for a 3.0-3.2 liter V6, but then, Honda hasn't readied a 3.0 liter DOHC iVTEC for production yet, atleast not until the next Accord arrives. A disadvantage with a V6 would be added weight (I'd add 150 lb. to the curb weight without thinking), and poorer gas mileage. The 2.4 liter displacement choice provides a good compromise for them who want a good fuel economy, and performance of a small V6.
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    I'd say quite a few. Style really sells. Most customers will look past the Tribute's average-powered 4-cylinder engine and care more about the modern styling, the SUV-look, the commanding view and the car-like ride.

    You hafta admit- it's a good-looking vehicle.

    The CR-V basically copied the Escape's body style.
    And now it looks decent (I always thought the current CR-V was too boxy). But those headlights just look weird from the frontal view.
  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    I just hope Honda brings it all over here...the nav system, Fullmark, VSA, 3rd row...just bring it all.

    Diploid - Think about how those items would add to the cost of the car. Would you really pay $26-27K for a CR-V? With kind of money, I'd step up to a Highlander or something similar.

    Robertmx - Specific output for the 2.4L i-VTEC is about the same as the Soob 2.5 4cyl and the Suzuki 2.5 V6, but I'll wager that the powerband is broader than both.

    As for a V6. Dream on, folks. The CR-V is still based on a Civic platform. Let's take a minute to consider what Honda would have to do.

    With 6 cylinders under the hood, you'd have to enlarge the front of the vehicle. Maybe cut out some legroom in the front, remove those pesky crush zones, or lengthen the wheelbase. Ford gets away with by having a hood that is almost two inches higher than the CR-V's. Ever wonder why they only get 20 mpg? It's been well documented that the EPA estimates are optimistic at best. Estimated cost to the consumer: $1,000-1,4000.

    Now what about extra weight. How do you compensate for that? Maybe add beefier suspension, bolster the chassis with extra reinforcements, upgrade the mountings, or maybe leave off things like the hood. Weight distribution is about 55/45 biased toward to the front. With an extra 150 lbs (using Robert's estimate) we're at about 58/42. Not the best for handling, better upgrade that suspension again. Estimated cost to the consumer: $800-1,200.

    Oh what, now you want a drivetrain? Well that Civic-based gear box and mechanicals aint gonna cut it with 200 ftlbs cranking through it. I think we need to change it's direction too. Estimated cost to the consumer: $500.

    Well, now we have most of the designing done, the only question now is, "where do we build it?" Well we can't use a Civic line because of the engine and tranny, but we can't use an Accord line because of the platform. We need a new production line. Not that big a deal, actually. Honda can ramp up production lines rather quickly. However, shipping the parts all over the place is anothe matter all together. Cost to the consumer: $300-400.

    Yeah, that's all fiction, but you should get the point. The Escape/tribute are based on V6 platforms with trannies based on the same cars. The Santa Fe and Vue are also based on 6 cyl platforms The Xterra is based on a midsize platform that spent its youth smoking and stunted its growth. The Liberty is unique, but it doesn't have to share with another cars. Honda is too small to afford that kind of production. They have to share platforms for economic reasons. The Suzuki has a V6, but it puts out less power than the 2.0 based engine in the new CR-V!! Why would you want that?
  • drew_drew_ Posts: 3,382
    Good post, thanks for sharing.

    BTW, the Grand Vitara XL-7's 2.7L V6 engine has been bumped up in horses for '02, now making 183 hp @ 6000 rpms, and 180 ft-lbs of torque @ 4000 rpms. The Grand Vitara's 2.5L V6 makes 165hp @ 6500 rpms, and 162 ft-lbs of torque @ 4000 rpms.

    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • Diploid's correct in saying that most people are drawn to its "styling, the SUV-look, the commanding view and the car-like ride." At the same time, you don't need a redundant set of chromosomes to notice that most shoppers these days are looking for an automatic transmission as well.

    varmit: It's probably not a very big segment, but Honda could probably attract some shoppers that don't need/want something MDX-sized, but like the ides of being coddled by a mini-SUV with lots of frills for $26-27K. I've always thought that such a beast would slot into the Acura lineup nicely. Have you noticed those shiny-new $22K 2-door hatchbacks rolling into the Acura showrooms lately? I don't think they're having a problem getting people interested in those.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,788
    that there may be a turbo CRV in the works. I think is a 2.0L, not the 2.4L. If I remember correctly, it was in a UK web site or publication, which would account for the 2.0L engine. I think the 2.4L is only for North America.

    Now if they would offer a low-boost 2.4L turbo, then we're talking... It would offer excellent all around performance, and could probably be built off the existing platform without too much extra beefing up.

  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I thought the only FI engines from Honda's bin were supplied for CART.

    I doubt that will happen, or should happen, for that matter. I would prefer a 3-3.2 liter V6 under the hood of a CRV to get 200-225 HP, than a turbo charged 2.0 liter engine doing it. Turbo charged 3.0 liter V6 would be another thing though. :)

    Varmit made some excellent points about V6 and CRV. Not that Honda can't put a V6 under the hood of CR-V, they won't. Besides chassis reiforcements, added cost etc. the marketing people would look at "what sells". If V6 was a necessity, I'm sure Honda would put one from the Accord. Honda sees Europe as a greater market for CRV, and is moving the European Accord production back to Japan, while the UK plant focuses on CRV. So, engine displacement, and fuel efficiency plays a significant role. And most people wouldn't care for V6 engine anyway (most likely after test driving the 2002 CRV, based on couple of reviews I've read).

    BTW Varmit... it seems that 90% of peak torque is available between 2250-5750 rpm, which sounds pretty good. And like I've said before, the 'startup' gearing is nice and short, especially surprising on a Honda with only 6500 rpm redline.
  • scnamescname Posts: 296
    Anyone got info whether the new tail lamps are the high transparent crystal type or same old cloudy type on current CRV ?
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,788
    Honda produced a turbo motorcycle. It was a version of the GL500/650 shaft-drive V-twin Silver Wing.

    I have no doubt, if Honda wanted to, they could make a superb 2.4L turbo. It would certainly be a much easier and more cost-effective than offering the Accord V6 as an option. As Varmit said, more of the CRV would have to be re-engineered to fit a V6; not necessarily so with only adding turbo. Sure, some beefing up would be need, but not nearly so as if it were to shoe-horn a V6 in there.

  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    From all the pictures I've seen so far, it seems as if the new tail lamps are of the high transparent crystal type. But I doubt that they all light up.

    slugline- I agree. I personally wouldn't mind trading off gas mileage for a beefier engine in a nimble package. Of course, we probably represent a very small percentage of buyers.
  • scnamescname Posts: 296
    Honda and Toyota have a reputation for making cars that last 200,000 miles. They earned it with engines before this variable valve timing thing. With VVT so new, few have proven themselves.

    I heard they will suffer catastrophic damage if the variable valve timing thing malfuntion. This is my only reliability concern with the new CRV.

    Diploid, I saw all the pictures too, they look bright but even old CRV tail lamp look very bright in pictures.
Sign In or Register to comment.