Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
2007 Honda CR-V
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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.
Bob
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.
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.
Bob
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
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.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I don't know if it was a nav system but there is a display screen built into the center instrument stack.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
I heard the same thing with the 2006 Civic...and the 2007 Fit.
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.
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.
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....
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.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
Bob
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
When you say it like that, I think I'm sold on it.
What does $100 a barrel oil mean at the pump? $5-$7 per gallon?
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
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.
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.