2007 Honda CR-V

stevedebi · September 2006

"Carpet was in pieces with visible seems. "

Are you sure that wasn't the floor mats? They snap together, if they are like the Gen 2 mats.

bodble2 · September 2006

I haven't seen the CR-V, but I did have a chance to check out the RDX. And the quality of the leather and carpet didn't exactly overwhelm me, so I wouldn't be surprised if the CR-V is even more econo-grade.

jeffwork · September 2006

Could have been. I didn't do a long thorough inspection, we just got in and looked around. I still may go back and test drive but my enthusiasm is pretty much gone.

c_hunter · September 2006

I don't get great mileage on my Outback (20-24 with 21 typical) but it's the XT (turbo model). The 2.5i models are rated something like 23/28 and do better (and they can use regular fuel). They are more inline with the CR-V, while my XT is more aligned with the RDX.

From what I could see, the CRV and the Outback have similar cargo volume, however the Outback's is longer front to back, but not as tall. The downside is tighter back seat space in the Outback -- something I wish Subaru would improve on. The distribution of space in the CR-V is much better overall.

letsee · September 2006

Today we took test drive. For LX-AWD, the dealer gave his coat, i.e,21,300 + taxes
Is it a good price?

joecarnut · September 2006

I too was disappointed with the rear window.
It does have a "tunnel vision" effect.

Also the vehicle is a little smaller than I was expecting.
And the areas in the back that support the cover thingy waste much room if you don't intend on using that.

In comparison to the RAV4 I think the CRV interior looks better in terms of quality of materials. Also the back seat is a little cushier than the RAV4, but still not high enough for my liking. The center tray for the LX wasn't as bad as the pictures suggest.

kathleenf · September 2006

Do I really need a 4wd? I live in Boston which gets a good amount of snow depending on the year. Will some good all season tires along with 2wd to the trick?

varmint · September 2006

I drove a 1999 CR-V through 7 winters in the Boston area. The answer depends on how necessary it is for you to drive in foul weather.

With the addition of stability control on all CR-V models, the safety of the CR-V has been improved significantly. Stability control will help keep you pointed in the proper direction and can assist with getting you stopped.

Traction control, which is part of stability control, can help get you moving in the slick stuff. It makes the two front tires more effective in getting you moving from a standstill.

That said, AWD is the best for getting you moving from a stop. It is also more effective at pushing you through deep snow.

If you've got a job where you "gotta get out in the snow", then AWD is worth it. If you can call in and tell the boss, "I'll work from home." Don't bother with it.

A nice alternative would be to buy a set of good winter tires. These can make all the difference. However, you'll need to have these removed in the Spring, then remounted on the car when the winter weather returns.

kathleenf · September 2006

Thanks for the advice! I am a public school teacher, so snow days will be a good thing! I'm just not sure whether to opt for the 4wd 'just in case' but on the other hand I'd hate to get something (4wd) I really don't need.

cconwill · September 2006

According to the Honda website, the MSRP for the LX-4WD is $21,800. Then there is a destination charge of $595. My dealer is adding an extra $500 in addition to those charges, so if your dealer is charging you $500 less than MSRP, I would say that is a good price. The prices may come down when the car is not a brand-new just-released model, but right now my dealer is charging more because of that.

ecotrklvr · September 2006

I live in California, but used to travel to Southern Mass several times a year, including winter time. I always asked Enterprise Rent a Car for a 4WD Escape, and several times I was glad that I had the extra control. There's some fairly steep hills on the road from PVD Airport to Uxbridge that made the extra $ worth it.

Most of that extra $1800, if you can afford it, will come back to you at resale/trade time. The rest is insurance.

kathleenf · September 2006

Thanks! I'm still up in the air. Most reports I have read is that it a nice bonus but not really necessary! Still undecided!

banjolaya1 · September 2006

Let's try this (FYI):
2006 CR-V SE 4WD 5AT (MSRP) = $25450
2007 CR-V 4WD EX-L (MSRP) = $26000
Price difference = $550
2006 CR-V SE 4WD 5AT (Invoice) = $23,510
2007 CR-V 4WD EX-L (Invoice) = $23,510 + $550 = $24060
It can't be too far off. And there is nothing you can do with this for a month or two until the hype wears off.
My motto: I absolutely refuse to pay MSRP!

bodble2 · September 2006

I'll decide for you -- get the AWD!

It's not just a matter of whether you have the option of calling in sick from work. What if you were already out, and in starts to snow, or you'll in the middle of a trip and the weather turns on you? It's cheap insurance. Look at the amount you pay every year for your house insurance. You probably haven't made any claim, but you still buy it every year.

banjolaya1 · September 2006

But on the other hand, if you are already out and it starts to snow, you can find a cheap motel by the freeway and pay $50-$100 vs. $1000 difference between 2WD and 4WD. But if you are skier and you happen to be up there when it starts to snow - then you really need it. However, somebody made a good point - 4WD will make you drive better on the snow but it won't make you stop better! So, in the end - you decide what you need.

isellhondas · September 2006

Why would you waste or time and the time of a salesperson by test driving a car you don't like and know you won't buy?

It is interesting reading the different opinions here.

No car will please everybody, that's for sure!

isellhondas · September 2006

Another thing to consider is the resale down the road!

A 2WD CRV can be a very hard car to sell in a northern climate. Very few people want one!

bsparks · September 2006

Just test drove 2007 EX in DC area. Good news is I liked it a lot. Seats good, no carpet issues as discussed on board, rear window a tad small as reported but not awful. Insides will not be confused with Lexus 330, but you are paying only 2/3rds the cost. Seemed fine to me.

Only two concerns really. The sticker was asking for MSRP + destination + $1995 "market adjustment". The dealer was a Costco partner so I asked for their no haggle price. They lowered it to MSRP + destination, which isn't wonderful but was a $1995 cheaper. :sick:

Second concern was mileage. The car had only driven 34 miles so it was a very small sample, but the mileage calculator was reporting 17.5 mpg. Not exactly close the the EPA numbers.

For now I'm going to give it at least to the Spring to see if it drops in price.

saabgirl · September 2006

... at the dealer in Manchester, CT. Parked my '05 beside it for the eyeball comparo.

Overall, the '07 seems more minivanish and girled up. To my eye, the nose's Kaiser-Fraser look doesn't get better in person. The sculpting on the sides and rear seemed like embellishments. Didn't like the D-pillar treatment. The interior also looked embellished, but I didn't see any particular functional improvement, it's just a little purtier. The new vehicle seemed smaller than mine, particularly in black.

That said, Saabgirl, my missus, pronounced the '07 "cute" w/out prompting from me. (Though she didn't begin agitating for a trade.)

That's my humble opinion, but I'll bet I'm way outnumbered by the Moms out there who will like the embellished treatment, will see the vehicle as safe and family budget friendly, will easily picture themselves at the wheel, cell phone in hand, with a back seat filled with kiddos.

When I was shopping back in '05 I was looking for some ground clearance, a flip up rear window and easily reachable tie downs on all four corners. So the new version may not have made my short list.

Just my .02.

isellhondas · September 2006

I'll bet those new mileage calculators are going to cause me trouble.

This is a NEW car. During the pre-delivery inspections, they idle a lot. They get driven short distances on the lot etc.

lir · September 2006

"I'll bet I'm way outnumbered by the Moms out there who will like the embellished treatment, will see the vehicle as safe and family budget friendly, will easily picture themselves at the wheel, cell phone in hand, with a back seat filled with kiddos."

I don't think you are outnumbered. Went to see it, and was very disappointed. I was hoping to trade in my Accord, but quickly changed my mind. Like you, I found it to be "van like" or "wagon like". Looked way smaller than my RAV4. I may consider the 06 CRV, which now looks very appealing to me. At my dealer, they are selling the 07 right at MSRP, but the sales manager who I've known for 15 years (we have 2 other Hondas), said he was willing to negotiate. Too bad I really don't want it, but I'm sure I would get a great deal for the 06.

bodble2 · September 2006

Does the '07 have anything over the '06? Unless you like the new styling (and I don't know who would), the '06 does seem very appealing, in view of deals available. I guess the flip-up tailgate is an improvement, and the under-floor spare, but you lose the separate-opening glass, picnic table and ground clearance in the process. I one feature I do like is the auto-off headlights. But overall, I can see a lot of people rushing to get a remaining '06.

banjolaya1 · September 2006

Last night I drove by the LHM Honda dealership in Salt Lake City. There were 8 2007 CR-V's lined up by the street. I saw no people lined up waiting to buy one. I don't think it'll sell much better than '06. It does look a little bit funny, from the front the grille goes up to front lights and it looks like CR-V has a big smile. But the exterior didn't look too bad. I was a little bit disappointed with the interior. It really doesn't look all that glamourous. It looked even a little bit on the cheaper side but yes - it's no Lexus but the price is right so I shouldn't be complaining.
One thing though, I was wondering about that Navigation system. What good would that do to me in SLC? If I have business in LA for example, I jump on the plane and now how do I get around LA? I can't take out the Navigation system and take it with me. So why pay $2000 extra? You can buy a laptop for $500 and Microsoft Streets and Trips with GPS for $100 and take it with you wherever and whenever you want. Or you can buy a Garmin for $500 and have it with you all the time. I see back East people could use it if they drive around from town to town but around here (in the West) you don't get very far in a car. So, no CR-V with Navi for me!

balaauto · September 2006

Dont know what you folks are complaining about. I think the new styling is sleek. The old box styling with a rear door mounted spare tire is so 80s. The internal styling is also great. MP3/WMA player is standard. Safety features - Electronic Stability Control is standard on all models (Called VSA on Honda cars). We considered the RDX, TSX and the Lexus RX before deciding that we can get an SUV as good as the luxury cars for a little over half the price. Can't beat this deal.

We bought an LX 2WD 07 CRV for 20K + TTL in Dallas today.
- knocked off destination & 600 from the MSRP

kyfdx · October 2006

You are right about the gas mileage calculators.. A lot of in-town test driving will bring it way down.

When we got our last car, it had around 65 miles on it (15 from my own test drive), and the gas mileage to that point was 14.3 mpg. The EPA numbers on the car are 18 city 25 highway..

After 11,000 miles, we are averaging 23 mpg..

c_hunter · October 2006

I agree it's a good value for the price, but nobody's ever going to confuse it with a luxury vehicle! However, you have probably come to the same realization I have in many cases: that the extra features on the luxury models are not necessarily something I want. I do think the EX model CR-V's are a little more middle of the road, and would be what I am shooting for in a car.

tenmac · October 2006

I hear tell that the NAVI units wont be at the dealers till Xmas.

For not just EX-L.

You can get a pda with built in gps for 600 and it fits in your pocket. The navi in the car adds rearview monitor plus all kinds of fancy stuff for the audio system. The portable navi stuff takes a while to find themselves but the in-car systems know where the car last stopped rather quickly. I have a pda based navi and it is great for those who travel via other modes! But the incar units are great for those who generally dont fly away to other places. I await the HP new series pda/phone/gps for 1/4th the cost!

tenmac · October 2006

AWD does not eat into the mpg to a great degree. Makes the vehicle more versatile not just in snow but also on rain slick roads. You could also go off the beaten path (light duty) and not worry about it.

CRV without AWD is a hard sell in the used mkt, and dealer tells in the new mkt as well. Some switchers from domestic SUV vehicles are not yet sold on the AWD concept as they equate it to the old 4x4 which is mainly helpful in very tough situations and generally in straight lines only! Parking a vehicle in tight quarters while in 4x4 is murder but parking the AWD is a non issue. Some old Subus would balk while being parked due to their AWD mechs but the current technology does not bind at all.

saabgirl · October 2006

We considered the RDX, TSX and the Lexus RX before deciding that we can get an SUV as good as the luxury cars for a little over half the price. Can't beat this deal.

I agree that value and styling strategy that imitates the next tier up will help sell many '07 CR-Vs.

I'm sorry to see the "old box styling" end, because it perfectly matched the vehicle's intended function. I like that approach.

On the other hand my neighbor bought a Hyundai (I think), because it "looks like a CR-V." I guess everybody gets to vote with their own hard-earned cash.

At least the new Mini Cooper still looks like what it is, a Go Kart for semi-grownups.

bodble2 · October 2006

"We considered the RDX, TSX and the Lexus RX before deciding that we can get an SUV as good as the luxury cars for a little over half the price."

Well, at least the marketing folks at Honda will be ecstatic that you're lumping the CR-V in with this group. Unfortunately, its not the appropriate comparison. Using your logic, you should've bought a Hyundai Tucson, or a bus pass.

lir · October 2006

What is sleek to some people, is ugly to others. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Just one more opinion to add to the many, nothing more, nothing less.... :shades:

harvey44 · October 2006

I sat in 2007 EXL yesterday at the fair. Very nice.

The cons: no stick, cheap plastic interior, bad view out the rear. Other than that excellent.

CRV vs Outback. I agree on all points.

M

fnamowicz · October 2006

Honda's 4WD is called Real Time 4-Wheel Drive which is essentially a sophisticated 2WD system.
During traction loss on the front axle the system routes torque to the rear axle so for a brief moment you have 4WD (AWD).
Doesn't mean much because only two wheels have traction.
Once the front axle regains traction the system reverts back to 2WD.
With Stability and Traction Control being standard Honda 4WD is not that important. The careful driver is still the best feature.

Only my opinion.

joecarnut · October 2006

Congrats on your new CR-V and especially for getting a decent price.

extech2 · October 2006

"but in general I have never understood why many people choose a poorer handling clunky SUV when there are much better vehicles out there for their purposes."

Because every time we drive more than a few miles with my wife, 2 dogs and the parrot in our Accord, I wish we had an SUV instead. The sedan is too small inside. And if we had any children, they would be tied down outside to the roof rack. They wouldn't fit in the trunk because that's where we put the cooler and the folding chairs.

thegraduate · October 2006

Well, minivans certainly carry more cargo than full-size SUVs, they carry people more comfortably, ride better, handle better, get better economy, and in some cases are a good deal quicker in acceleration too. (Again, this is only true of full-size SUVs compared to Minivans)...

I feel like if people would get over the "stigma" of driving a minivan (C'mon people, I'm 19 and LOVED driving and riding our Odyssey - comfortable, roomy, and powerful!) they'd find a much more useful vehicle than their Expeditions and Tahoes...for much less money!

The exception here is for towing, where the minivans can only handle 3,500-4,000 pounds.

Check out a van!

isellhondas · October 2006

Exactly!

Of you don't like the way it looks, buy something else!

No matter what it looks like there will ALWAYS be people who don't like it!

Sometimes I honestly think some people try to find things to complain about.

jimbres · October 2006

"Safety features - Electronic Stability Control is standard on all models (Called VSA on Honda cars)."

Are you aware that VSA has been a standard feature on the CR-V since the '05 model year?

c_hunter · October 2006

I would think a wagon or CR-V sized CUV makes more sense for that kind of load/usage, and if you did have kids, a minivan would make more sense. Heavy towing is about the only reason I'd be going for a larger SUV.

natenj1971 · October 2006

Saw a commercial with the new CRV, going from black to white as popcorn popped as if the CRV was a microwave bag of popcorn. Car ads sure are getting funny.

yerdrive · October 2006

I liked it too. I just brought the 2007 EX AWD CRV and love it! Some people complained about the looks of this CRV but I personally thinks it looks great. Drives more smoother than the RAV4.

Interior looks good. I like the position of the gear shift, not like our older CRV, which have the shift gear so close to the steering wheel.

Definitely worth my money, and being a Honda, it'll last me for a long time.

harvey44 · October 2006

Which minivans get better gas mileage than the CRV?

hbc75 · October 2006

Why is it that in all of the marketing material that is out on the CR-V they push the Nav system. Then when you go to get it, they say "not available until mid next year production"??? I walked into the dealer expecting to see one. I have looked at the Pilot in the past, but it's too big for my needs. I don't tow, and don't have the kids to tote around. Maybe a dog someday soon, but other than that, the CR-V would do me good. I test drove it anyhow, didn't think the badk window was "tunnel" like at all. It has as much clearance as any of my past 3 vehicles have. Unless you are comparing it to a previous version of a CR-V, I would not make that an issue. I thought the cargo room was good, the "cheap" pull belts others have talked about, worked easily, not the norm, but something to get used to when folding the rear seats or tilting them. I think the car will fit into a lot of budgets, and depending on what you needs are, I think this is a reasonably affordable vehicle for the options. Just my 2 cents.

thegraduate · October 2006

You didn't read the last sentence of the first paragraph of my post (#1151) did you? Read it.

robr2 · October 2006

One thing though, I was wondering about that Navigation system. What good would that do to me in SLC? If I have business in LA for example, I jump on the plane and now how do I get around LA? I can't take out the Navigation system and take it with me. So why pay $2000 extra?

That's your situation, mine is the opposite. I'm starting to make sales calls in New England and never fly. I always drive and like having a NAV built into the car I'm in everyday. It'll be in the next vehicle I buy.

varmint · October 2006

Look at it this way for a second...

If Honda introduced the CR-V with an MSRP that was $500 higher than it is... then gave you a $500 discount, would you buy vehicle?

MSRP is a very arbitrary number. The market decides the real value of the vehicle. Good ole supply and demand is a big part of it. Buyer hysteria is another. For some vehicles (very few) the true value of a vehicle is well above MSRP. For most, it is well below that number.

Right now, the 2007 CR-V is too new for anyone to tell what the "real" street price should be. So, dealers are working with the arbitrary number given to them by the accountants at Honda corporate.

spind · October 2006

Can you please advise on the what a dealer Costco partner is?

varmint · October 2006

Poked around inside a 2007 EX-L the other day. Didn't drive it. Listened to some other customers as they gave it a once-over.

For me, the looks did not improve upon seeing it in person. They rarely do. I have some training in studio arts and it's enough for me to know how to "read" a photo. It's a good-looking vehicle spoiled by a hideous schnoz.

The interior looks good. Definitely a step up from the 02-06 models in terms of style. I agree with C_Hunter about the lack of soft-touch surfaces. I do not agree that they were cheap. A couple or raps with a knuckle in various places produced nothing but solid noises. The interior is covered with hard plastics, but they are not cheap plastics.

Assembly was nearly perfect. In fact, the dash was perfect. Despite this being an early model off the assembly line, every little seam (and there are a lot of them) was perfectly fitted and tight. There are a variety of surface textures, but gaps between them were tight, tight, tight! Better than a few of the luxury vehicles I've driven or ridden in recently.

I wrote "nearly" perfect, because I did find one flaw. The gap between the door and the dash was about 1/8 inch wider on the driver's side than the passenger's. (Something I learned to check from the editors here... Karl Brauer, maybe?)

Seats were comfy. Radio looks great, but I didn't listen to it. Cubbies are all pretty small. The tray under the passenger seat is about a 3rd the size of the one in my old 99 model. It might be good for a small paperback.

Spoke with a few people on the lot. Lots of activity around the CR-V.

One couple was about to drive it and asked point-blank if I'd buy one them (serious shoppers!). They were down-sizing from an Ody and liked the idea of a small SUV, but the Mrs. was having a hard time giving up all the interior space.

Another woman was there and, like me, was just being a lookie-loo. She owned a current model and we compared notes. She wanted a more truckish look. She wasn't going to miss the picnic table, but complained about the center console. She prefers the flip tray. (I explained it was available on lower trims.)

With so many people around, I didn't want to waste the staff's time and I boogied without a test drive. Not sure I'd want to be seen in one anyway.

stevedebi · October 2006

"The car had only driven 34 miles so it was a very small sample, but the mileage calculator was reporting 17.5 mpg. Not exactly close the the EPA numbers."

1. It's new, and it is being driven "hard" by buyers interested in checking out the acceleration and power.

2. The above not withstanding, if you drive the CR-V hard, 17.5 is possible. I got about that on my 2003 for a couple of tanks before I started driving sensibly. I ended up at 20-22 in town.

stevedebi · October 2006

"During traction loss on the front axle the system routes torque to the rear axle so for a brief moment you have 4WD (AWD).
Doesn't mean much because only two wheels have traction. "

I see your point, but I'm pretty sure the front wheels still receive power. Only part of the power is sent to the rear wheels.

2007 Honda CR-V

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles