2007 Honda CR-V

miamicrv1 · July 2006

I think once you all see the interior you'll feel less concerned about it's unusual front end. The interior is so much better then the current CRV and the seats look incredibly comfortable. The seats are almost car like and look very supportive not like the current flat ones designed for big [non-permissible content removed] Walmart shoppers.
And I think once seen in person many of the more subtle design elements that are never evident in pictures will pull the whole package together for you.
The front grill area gives the vehicle kind of a bucktooth look. The individual parts are not ugly in of themselves. As little as I liked the current iteration of the CRV I decided I wanted one of these right on the spot.

varmint · July 2006

I know. Technically, it's 60.6 cu.ft.

I took a tape measure to the RDX when I saw it in NY. There are a few areas were the RDX cargo area is better than the current CR-V. The space between the wheel arches, for example. However, the Acura's overall capacity falls well short of both the 1st and 2nd gen Hondas.

My hope was that Honda raised the roofline, put a little less curve in the hatch, and removed things like the shelf/cargo cover from the RDX in order to make the CR-V better able to handle cargo. Whether they did that or not has yet to be seen.

Why do I care? For one, this generation CR-V is the one I was hoping to get when I retire my MDX years from now. Also, we have never had a small SUV with less than 65 cu.ft. of cargo space that has done well in this market. The old RAV4s and the Foresters are both good examples. Both offer quality, a good level of comfort, good performance, safety, fuel economy, value, interior materials, and a nice long list of features. Yet they have always played second fiddle to vehicles like the CR-V, Escape, Santa Fe, Equinox, and such. Cargo and passenger space are important in this market. It looks like the CR-V is losing its advantage in cargo space.

I know many people think the CR-V will make up for that shortcoming with improved performance, a better interior, or more features, but that's not what history has shown us. The RAV4 and Forester have always been sportier and offered a longer list of features.

It looks to me like this generation CR-V was built for Japan and Europe. In those markets, the buyers will appreciate the sportier performance and they won't care so much about a smaller interior. They like smaller vehicles. Those markets are also more accustomed to odd styling.

rsholland · July 2006

Maybe those who don't like the rounder CRV will now consider the boxier Element?

Bob

varmint · July 2006

Honestly, I'm putting my personal hopes on the next generation Element. Honda has shown a concept for Japan which is based on a mini car, but has a look which is almost identical to the Element. So, apparently, that design language has some fans.

My expectation was that the 2007 CR-V would remain the family choice, get a little more expensive, and offer a higher level of refinement and features. Then the Element could pick up the bargain shoppers in the market with a vehicle that a lower price and the more radical looks.

It seems the Element might be getting the lower price tag, flat out better styling, and utility. It wouldn't surprise me if the new Element (assuming we get one) will overshadow the new CR-V. We might see both vehicles selling 100K units per year. A big loss for the CR-V and a big gain for the Element.

flyer4 · July 2006

Does anyone think the 2007 Honda Crv will have a Navi option?

drive62 · July 2006

When the second generation first showed people said the front end styling was cartoonish, like a Japanese anime character. Did you agree at the time? Or did you warm up to the design? Or was it never really that bad? For whatever reason you like the styling of the second generation where many people didn't.

drive62 · July 2006

We might see both vehicles selling 100K units per year.

Well that's more than the 70K for the CR-V you were predicting before.

I really think you are overreacting to the new CR-V and especially it's front end. Looking at the latest picture the headlights look the same as the current model. The "H" logo incorporated into the chrome is similar to current and is certianly no more offensive than the Accord or Civic. The black bumper area is very similar to the current model. What's really new? the horizontal thin chrome strips. Someone said they may be blacked out. I didn't particularly like the mid generation styling change to the front end of the current model, thought it made it less sporty. This continues it a bit more as the vehicle is getting more car like. Styling is certainly nothing horrendous as you keep shouting. It is the next generation of the CR-V, an evolution in styling. It is not Aztek like in the least.

rsholland · July 2006

The only real problem I have with the Element is its poor payload rating of 675 pounds. For a "truck" that's miserable. I think it should be ~ 1,100 pounds, which is what Jeep and most mid-sized SUVs are rated at. Even 900 pounds (Forester) would be better than what it's rated at now.

Bob

janetsammi · July 2006

Does anyone know if the 2007 CR-V will have ths Special Edition that offers heated front Seats?

drfill · July 2006

Strange how this market will shift, but it is obvious the Rav4 is a HUGE hit, and will sell over 150k in it's first full year.

Honda may sell 100k, but I see sales going anywhere but up, with it's new, but not improved, front end, rear end, and controversial profile styling, and smaller interior, with no 3rd row to fight Toyota either.

Less power, less room, less style (than a car that had little to spare). 3 strikes, and someone is out of the top spot in this category. :sick:

DrFill

kyfdx · July 2006

..will never be mainstream, unless they go to a normal 4-door..

You can't have a MOM-mobile, where Mom has to open her door to let the kids out..

The picture of the Element with all four doors wide open is neat, but in real life situations, it works just like an RX-8.

miamicrv1 · July 2006

After months of discussion and analysis we're all typically disappointed with the final product at least in terms of design, but not this time. I predict that the new CRV will steal sales from the RAV4, BMW X3 and maybe even the RDX. In spite of all the pictures when you see it in person it's an impressive leap forward and tremendous value for the money, it screams quality.

I don't know if it was a nav system but there is a display screen built into the center instrument stack.

joecarnut · July 2006

Did the dash look anything like the new Civics?

ew3074 · July 2006

but now the 2006 Rav4 is selling pretty good and it is a really nice SUV. Now 2007 CRV is coming soon and I can't wait to see who is gonna be the winner

looboo1 · July 2006

I have found only three SUV's that do not have a center console and leave some space for "stuff." One is the CRV, and that's why we want one. The others are the Vue and Equinox. So I would have only one request from Honda- just as you have with the Odyssey- PLEASE DON'T PUT IN A FULL CENTER CONSOLE ON THE 2007 CR-V or else we are buying a 2006. That is one of the nicest features, allowing for the comfortable 2nd armrest, too. I am sure there is a way to but the shifter on the floor and still have that needed space. We like the flip-up tray. Anyone have any insights on this?

miamicrv1 · July 2006

The dash looks completely different then the Civic. No digital readouts or two tier structure. There is a speedo/RPM pod directly in front of the driver and a center stack with all the HVAC/radio and display screen. The gear shift at least on the automatics I saw was built into the lower portion of the center stack. There is no center console dividing the front cabin. The CRVs I saw had leather and sunroof so they might have been the upper level models but they had a tinted aluminum trim everywhere on the door handles, dash and around the gear shifter. As I mentioned before it's one of the best interiors I've seen on a Honda. The seats looked great. Overall it has much more of a car/high quality interior look then anything we've seen on either of the past two iterations of the CRV.

drive62 · July 2006

Less power, less room, less style (than a car that had little to spare). 3 strikes, and someone is out of the top spot in this category.

So are you referring to the new CR-V vs. the old CR-V or the new CR-V vs. the RAV4? You seem to be mixing your comparisons as the new CR-V will have MORE power than the current and it will have MORE room than the current. Styling of course is subjective.

Either way, do your research. The Escape is the top selling small SUV. Not the CR-V and not the RAV4 (at least not based on last years sales).

Another sky is falling post. For all those who are writing off the new CR-V in the small SUV category, check out an Equinox. Then you'll have something to complain about.

drive62 · July 2006

...we're all typically disappointed with the final product at least in terms of design..

Not all of us. Many still prefer to see something in person before they pronounce it a failure. Some also feel that styling may not be the biggest determining factor of the usefullness, quality, performance, etc. of a vehicle.

varmint · July 2006

Yes, the new CR-V should have a NAV option. It is likely that the option will be limited to the top tier models (EX or EX with leather).

varmint · July 2006

"I really think you are overreacting to the new CR-V and especially it's front end."

"Overreacting" is pretty much the reasoning Pontiac and Subary fans used when the Aztek and Tribeca were first shown. But after a year passes and the sales are still in the toilet, everyone can't help but agree the styling is a problem.

I'm being realistic. I am not the only one lamenting this design. I am not trying to beat the issue to death, I am responding to posters, like yourself, who keep asking about it.

"What's really new?"

My wife thinks I'm a handsome guy. She says I have nice eyes. If I moved those eyes to the back of my head or under my chin, would she still think I'm handsome? (Now, I'm being less realistic.)

Individual features don't matter. Yes, the headlights are very much the same. In fact, I think these new ones look better. But they no longer have a strong grill in between them. The dominant grill is now under them, making the facade look poorly proportioned. It's like the vehicle was designed by a cubist.

The most glaringly obvious problem with the new CR-V is the lower grill. It is not the chrome slats within the grill. It is the outline of it. The shape of it. The way it doesn't match up with any other lines on the facade. The fact that it looks like a large whale maw. It looks like they placed the headlights, added the chrome mustache with the H logo, and then couldn't figure out what to do with the rest of the space.

From a visual perspective, this nasty grill just draws attention to the 2nd bad feature on the front clip - Bubba's lower lip. The bumper doesn't jut forward any farther than on the current or previous CR-V. But that empty space above it makes it appear as though the bumper is poking out like a bulldog's jaw.

"It is not Aztek like in the least."

This is true. The Aztek is ugly from head to toe. This new CR-V has some very nice lines on the body and in the back. Only the nose is badly styled. It is more comparable with the Tribeca. But that is enough to kill a vehicle.

varmint · July 2006

"Less power, less room, less style (than a car that had little to spare). 3 strikes, and someone is out of the top spot in this category."

That's a pretty good summary of what I think may happen.

That said, the "less room" part is still just a rumor. I am desperately hoping it is not true.

I think the less power part is relative. The current model has 156 hp with a curb weight no higher than 3,500 lbs. The new model is reputed to retain the 2.4L engine with a modest bump in power (somewhere around 170 hp). But it's pretty clear the new platform is going to weigh a good deal more than the old one. Conservative estimates put it around 3,700-3,800 lbs. (That ACE body structure is heavy.) That means slightly more power, but significantly more weight for the engine to move.

yysyys · July 2006

The back of the Stream resembles a CRV with taillights that run up the rear all the way to the roof. The seven-seater with a fold-flat third row reminds us of what the Odyssey might have been had Honda not turned it into a traditional minivan here in North America. Traction control and an automatic transmission appear to be standard on the base model, while a six-speed is likely for the sportier RSZ. It still a bit unclear as to what engine will be available.There's also rumors floating around that forces within Honda North America want to see the Stream on sale in the States. It will compete with 7 seater Rav4 and Mazda 5

jmurman42 · July 2006

Yeah I agree.

I heard the same thing with the 2006 Civic...and the 2007 Fit.

master1 · July 2006

I can't tell from the picture, will the new CR-V have a third row window on both sides?

babushka · July 2006

have a 1998 civic now, need a small SUV for my next car, very dissapointed by the cargo space of the 2006 honda cr-v. hate that the seats do not fold flat and instead flip up, loose alot of space. this issue has forced me to consider RAV 4..... anyone know if this issue has been remedied in the 2007 version of CR-V? was planning to buy shortly but would be willing to hold out for a 2007 honda if it is, but based on prior threads am concerned. anyone with accurate info on this subject please help!

blueiedgod · July 2006

have a 1998 civic now, need a small SUV for my next car, very dissapointed by the cargo space of the 2006 honda cr-v. hate that the seats do not fold flat and instead flip up, loose alot of space. this issue has forced me to consider RAV 4..... anyone know if this issue has been remedied in the 2007 version of CR-V? was planning to buy shortly but would be willing to hold out for a 2007 honda if it is, but based on prior threads am concerned. anyone with accurate info on this subject please help!

Of course they fold flat, they tumble forward and recess into the space between the front and rear seats. To that you have to slide the rear seats all the way to the rear (yes, Gen 2 rear seats slide back and forth, like the front ones).

Looks like Gen 3 will have less cargo room than Gen 2.

drive62 · July 2006

...dissapointed by the cargo space of the 2006 honda cr-v.

The current CR-V has more cargo space than many larger SUVs that cost a lot more. Not sure what you are expecting. It is a small SUV.

drive62 · July 2006

I heard the same thing with the 2006 Civic...and the 2007 Fit.

And the '02 CR-V. Funny how everyone loves the current design and thinks the new model is horrible. The exact same things were said when the '02 was coming out but at that time they hated the new '02. Hmmm....

jmurman42 · July 2006

My thoughts too.

I can and have carried dressers, 2X4X8's, christmas trees, sand bags/rocks, golden retrievers and a ton of baby stuf...strollers, bags, etc. My 2004 does everything that I need in this sized car. The ONLY time I needed anything larger was to carry two sheets of sry wall (which I cut down and then carried anyway) and wood flooring for a remodel project.

Kirstie_H · July 2006

Hey, that's kinda like what happens when we have a site redesign or upgrade. Suddenly everyone just LOVES what we were doing in 1998 (except we had no search features, no profiles, no "tracked items" tool...)

rsholland · July 2006

People HATE change. Whether the change is good or not isn't important.

Bob

ateixeira · July 2006

The thing is the outgoing CR-V was a compact but had mid-size aspirations. The back seat was limo-like. Varmint keeps bringing up the large amount of cargo space when you fold the seats.

The new one seems more like what it is, a compact, with no mid-size aspirations. In that regard yes that could cost them a few sales.

-juice

ateixeira · July 2006

I didn't like the first gen's tail lights because of the sheet metal under them, the way they wrapped around the corners reminded me of the dustbuster vans, just add the spare:

ateixeira · July 2006

For the 2nd gen, they made them a little more interesting, it looked more like a Volvo V70, right down to the bumper that came up to meet the tail lights:

ateixeira · July 2006

Now the evolution is complete, and the 3rd gen has IMO the best looking tail lights of any CR-V design.

It looks more like the Volvo V90 SUV, now that the spare is gone and they almost gave it an S-like curvature. IMO it's the best feature on the entire design:

OK, I hate the underbite up front but I thought I'd at least point out one feature I did like better.

-juice

fsacj · July 2006

Perhaps they're appealing to the masses, not us. Less ground clearance is a non-issue for most buyers who never drive offroad at all. It might boost MPG a bit, and make entry-exit easier. Plus handling improves and tipover risk is reduced. Wider adds to this, plus three fit better in the back, and with an inch more wheelbase it might be even more limo-like. I bet the reduced cubic feet comes from the reduced hight, but there might be more usable floor space.

varmint · July 2006

When people complained about the look of the 2nd gen CR-V, they complained about the plastic slats which came up from the bumper and framed the grill. (People still don't like that part of the design.) It's one of the reasons why the painted SE models look so much better.

But even though that particular design cue was not a happy one, it was not enough to trash the entire facade. It was a wart on the face of a decent-looking rig.

This new nose is much more than a wart. It's more like putting a full beard on an otherwise pretty lady. Think ZZ Top crossed with Kate Hudson. It's not something viewers will get past.

varmint · July 2006

Wider is better. That's very true. It also reduces the risk of rollover as well as improves cornering stability.

Adding to the wheelbase however, did not improve rear seat room in the RDX. I doubt it will do much for the CR-V, which is based on very similar underpinnings. In fact, the seating position for RDX is more car-like (raked backward) meaning there is less room for legs in back.

The issue of cargo space is up for grabs. Some rumors say the space is the same. Others report a significant decrease.

I expect the width of the cargo area (between the wheel wells) will be greater with the new model.

I'm not if sure the distance from the back of the vehicle (hatch) to the second row of seats will be greater. Based on what I saw in the RDX, I'd say no. You will have less floor space with the seats up.

The distance from the back to the front seats (2nd row folded) will likely be greater.

The design of the rear seat and the "shelf/cargo cover" in the RDX also take up space. If the CR-V uses the same design, cargo volume will be seriously limited. It also appears a lower roof and smaller cargo door opening will restrict utility.

stevedebi · July 2006

"It also appears a lower roof and smaller cargo door opening will restrict utility."

And don't forget losing that great Gen 2 water-tight hole in the cargo floor, which will be filled by a spare tire in the 2007 model.

varmint · July 2006

If the design of the CR-V's rear seat and cargo hold match that of the RDX, you're in for big losses in the area of utility.

You lose the fish tub under the floor.

You lose the space in the rear seat footwells. (The seat cushion will fold into that space.)

You lose the full width of the cargo hold because only 80% of the seat folds forward. The outside seat bolsters stay upright.

You lose the space above the wheel wells if it uses that stupid shelf/cargo cover design. (If I'm not mistaken, the RDX also has no tie downs because that shelf covers the floor.)

You lose the one step flip/fold mechanism. You'll have to fold the seat cushion out of the way, then fold the seatback forward. This is very much like the 1st gen design, though there's no need to remove the headrests unless the front seats are set back fully.

You do gain a perfectly flat floor with no obstructions.

drfill · July 2006

I was referring to it's relative stature vs. Rav4, as the Rav4 has always been Second Fiddle to the CR-V in size, power, and sales.

If you need more information on the two vehicles, let me know.

Going a 3rd generation without a V6 will prove to be the deathknell of it's market advantage over Rav4. The new look will not help. Plus future redesigns of capable vehicles like Forester and Escape.

The Rav4 will be #1. It's not if, it's when. It's already selling at 13-14k a month, and Word of Mouth hasn't even hit yet! :shades:

DrFill

ccacp · July 2006

If you look at the spy picture the lime green CRV has a little black dimple near the H, that looks like a backup camera like on the PILOT !

heinrich44 · July 2006

I like the new design from the side and back. I'm not an engineer, but maybe they shoulda done something on the front end more simple like this:

stevedebi · July 2006

I don't think Honda would have left that space open unless there was a mechanical (cooling, probably) reason for it. At least I hope no one at Honda is so stupid as to have created that front for it's looks...

joecarnut · July 2006

Perhaps they're appealing to the masses, not us. Less ground clearance is a non-issue for most buyers who never drive offroad at all. It might boost MPG a bit, and make entry-exit easier. Plus handling improves and tipover risk is reduced. Wider adds to this, plus three fit better in the back, and with an inch more wheelbase it might be even more limo-like. I bet the reduced cubic feet comes from the reduced hight, but there might be more usable floor space.
When you say it like that, I think I'm sold on it.

miamicrv1 · July 2006

If things go badly and there certainly seems to be a track record for that over the last 6 years or so. Honda's decision to not sacrifice gas mileage for higher horsepower to match the RAV4 might turn out to be a brilliant marketing decision.
What does $100 a barrel oil mean at the pump? $5-$7 per gallon?

rsholland · July 2006

?

Keep in mind the V6 RAV4 is an option. RAV4 buyers (probably most of them) can still get the 4-cylinder if they so choose.

The difference is: With the RAV4 you have a choice; not so with the CRV.

Bob

drive62 · July 2006

If you need more information on the two vehicles, let me know.

Thanks for the offer but I'm pretty familiar with both of them.

Going a 3rd generation without a V6 will prove to be the deathknell of it's market advantage over Rav4 (sic).

Because you feel the CR-V needs a V6 you obviously do not understand Honda's intentions with this vehicle.

Do you need more information on Honda and the CR-V?

as the Rav4 (sic) has always been Second Fiddle to the CR-V in size, power, and sales.

Actually the RAV4 held the sales lead until the competition came along.

drive62 · July 2006

When people complained about the look of the 2nd gen CR-V, they complained about the plastic slats which came up from the bumper and framed the grill. (People still don't like that part of the design.)

For every person you find who did not like the 2G's front bumper I can find two that did. Remember, styling is subjective.

It's one of the reasons why the painted SE models look so much better.

I happen to like the black bumpers. It's an SUV, not a sedan. Remember, styling is subjective.

You may be right that cargo space changes and mechanical differences may make the CR-V more or less desirable to buyers but as you pointed out, the vast majority of the car buying public doesn't analyze these things like we do. They could care less about a front end design you find ugly. It's a Honda. People are drawn to them for their reliability and engineering. Looks play second fiddle.

spind · July 2006

I called my local Honda dealer as well as College Hills Honda who already lists the 07 CR-V models that are on order for Sept. According to the individuals that I spoke with, the Dealer Pre-Order Fact Sheet does not list a Nav System. Does anyone know anything that the dealers do not?

2007 Honda CR-V

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles