Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options

2007 Honda CR-V

1…89111314…57

Comments

  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    No, not really.

    There was one case of glass breakage, not "a lot".

    The hesitation is a valid issue, but I'm sure the new CR-V will have its own issues when those come out, noboby's perfect.

    -juice
  • Options
    dclark2dclark2 Member Posts: 91
    ""I am affraid to say this ....again.... but the new 07 CRV looks much better in person. I would hope readers would hold judgement until they see it in person, it will blow you away."

    Here are some things about the '07 that "blow" me away.
    Compared to the '06,
    1)Has on 5" ground clarance, so it will get stuck in situations where the '06 CRV would travel with ease
    2)Has a lot less cargo space, so it won't be as good a road trip car
    3) Costs more $
    I am currently looking to buy an '06 CRV. The '07 CRV? Overpriced, overweight and soon to be overhyped. It will take its place with the Del Sol as a Honda mistake...
  • Options
    robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    You can certainly get a much better deal on 2006 than you would on 2007, but those other two points you make (5" ground clearance and less cargo space) are wrong.

    The ground clearance is 7.3" (and how the suspension is set up could also have its impact on it), and the new CR-V actually has more cargo room (72.9 cu ft compared to 72 cu ft, not less). Information for 2007 CR-V is available on autodeadline.com.
  • Options
    stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "The ground clearance is 7.3" (and how the suspension is set up could also have its impact on it), and the new CR-V actually has more cargo room (72.9 cu ft compared to 72 cu ft, not less)."

    First, I think the current CR-V has over 8 inches in ground clearance? That is more than the new CR-V.

    Second, the new CR-V with the rear seats up will have less space than the old one. There is no way they are going to get the same functionality without the height of the current model. They have sacrificed interior room for styling, unlike the GEN 2, which appears to have been styled for interior room. And don't forget that they also appear to have sacrificed the great rear seat leg room in the new model.
  • Options
    drive62drive62 Member Posts: 637
    The Accord, current CR-V and Ody have very similar headlights. Oooh, yes maybe one of them has clearer lenses to see the bulbs or whatever but they certainly are similar----very similar. That's called a corporate look. The new CR-V carries over that look. Obviously the headlights on the Ody didn't bother you enough to not buy it---wonder why the very similar headlights on the new CR-V do bother you so much??
  • Options
    drive62drive62 Member Posts: 637
    The current CR-V came out in '01. The Accord redesign used the same headlight design (more or less) a couple years later.
  • Options
    ralph9ralph9 Member Posts: 88
    The cargo space with the second row folded is listed as 72.9 cu ft. There is about 51 inches maximum cargo length with width ranging between approximately 39 inches at the wheel wells to 54 inches at the rear area side panels.
    On the EX model there will be a dual deck cargo shelf system for two levels of storage in the rear cargo area. There will be 13 inches of vertical space underneath. The top shelf would have a weight limit of 20 lbs.
    The second row seatbacks have a 40/20/40 configuration to allow a pass through of long items with the second row up.
    If this info from autodeadline.com is correct, this vehicle will meet my requirements for cargo carrying capability.
  • Options
    robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    First, I think the current CR-V has over 8 inches in ground clearance? That is more than the new CR-V.

    Indeed. But it isn't 5" (which I called wrong information).

    Second, the new CR-V with the rear seats up will have less space than the old one.

    Where are you getting your numbers from? 2002-2006 CR-V cargo space with upright rear seats is 33.5 cu ft. This goes up to 35.7 cu ft in 2007. Rear seats folded down, the cargo space is up from 72.0 cu ft to 72.9 cu ft.

    And unlike 2002-2006 CR-V which has 60-40 rear seat split, 2007 gets 40-20-40 split.
  • Options
    stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "Where are you getting your numbers from? 2002-2006 CR-V cargo space with upright rear seats is 33.5 cu ft. This goes up to 35.7 cu ft in 2007. Rear seats folded down, the cargo space is up from 72.0 cu ft to 72.9 cu ft.

    And unlike 2002-2006 CR-V which has 60-40 rear seat split, 2007 gets 40-20-40 split."

    I'm basing my comments on the fact that they streamlined the top instead of boxing it. I realize the CR-V will be somewhat wider, but I am not convinced it will be as useable a space as the Gen 2. I will wait until the official Honda 2007 CR-V US specs are published to comment further.

    You should note that the rear volume can be expanded in the Gen 2 by putting the seat forward by about 3 inches. I think the Gen 3 loses the sliding rear seats...
  • Options
    robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    But you already commented without looking at the specs. BTW, it is unofficially official specs that autodeadline has quoted and should appear on Hondanews.com just as soon as Honda "announces" 2007 CR-V. That is already better than going by assumption that new body style will have less room.
  • Options
    stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "But you already commented without looking at the specs. BTW, it is unofficially official specs that autodeadline has quoted and should appear on Hondanews.com just as soon as Honda "announces" 2007 CR-V. That is already better than going by assumption that new body style will have less room."

    I am going from the Acura RDX specs. The two vehicles share a platform and (presumably) basic shapes.

    The RDX (US Specs):

    Interior cargo volume: 28.8 feet.
    Rear legroom: 37.7.

    Gen 2 cargo volume: 33 cu ft (around 38 with the seats forward, in my experience.)

    Rear Legroom: 39.

    I consider these official Acura specs to be a better indicator than car sites. We will know for sure when Honda releases the specs. But I will be surprised if they allow their CR-V to have greater room than the RDX. That would be a major marketing mistake.
  • Options
    robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I am going from the Acura RDX specs. The two vehicles share a platform and (presumably) basic shapes.

    But they ARE different vehicles. Would you tell me that Accord is about as big as TSX since they share platform and basic shape? Marketing mistake? Well, Accord is larger than TSX and TL. Pilot is larger than MDX. It is nothing new at Honda. RDX is about sportiness more practicality less. CR-V is designed to be the sensible choice.

    Have you even looked at specifications on autodeadline? This is official from Honda (note the date and place on top). It will be posted "as is" at Honda's website in a few days. THAT is not just another car site that is faking numbers.
  • Options
    lahirilahiri Member Posts: 394
    RDX is the name of a chemical that Al Qaeda uses for making bombs. It's sad that Acura wants the vehicle to be named after Al Qaeda's favorite bomb-making chemical. I will not drive RDX even if Acura gives me one for free.
  • Options
    rockyteerockytee Member Posts: 35
    RDX is the name of a chemical that Al Qaeda uses for making bombs. It's sad that Acura wants the vehicle to be named after Al Qaeda's favorite bomb-making chemical. I will not drive RDX even if Acura gives me one for free.

    I"ll take it, should you ever get one for free
  • Options
    ralph9ralph9 Member Posts: 88
    The 2007 CRV will be produced at the East Liberty Ohio plant along with the Civic and Element. It's considered the third generation CRV and 20,000 units of the 2007 MY are scheduled to be made there. In such a circumstance, is it best to wait a while for any production "bugs" to be worked out, rather than being the first one in you neighborhood to own one? Did Honda have any initial problems when the Civic or Element production was moved there? Have most of you waited in these situations and, if so, how long? Thanks. Ralph
  • Options
    jmurman42jmurman42 Member Posts: 675
    RDX is an explosive base that is from the 1890's. We used it in WWll, so don't tie Al-Qeda into the term for an Acura vehicle.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX

    It's absolutely amazing how some people will make a statement or base a decision on something so assinine.
  • Options
    jmurman42jmurman42 Member Posts: 675
    All of our 2007's that are on the schedule to be built are slated to come from Europe at this point.
  • Options
    drive62drive62 Member Posts: 637
    This is the first I've heard about the split production. I (mistakenly) assumed all North American CR-Vs would come from Ohio.

    You say your dealership will get some from Europe (Swindon I presume). Do you know if Japanese produced CR-Vs will also come to North America?
  • Options
    jmurman42jmurman42 Member Posts: 675
    right now I have 48 07 CR-v's that are assigned to be built for us.

    When we receive our On Order Report it doesn't spell out wether we are getting them from Swindon or Japan. The only way we know where they are coming from is after they are built and we have a VIN.

    That being said the "On Order Report" gives us a 4 day window for a car being built in the US...for example a Civic would be 9-15 to 9-19. A CR-V or Hybrid or S2000 would simply say 9-15. It's not uncommon to see a car, for example a CR-V that is still listed as a build date of 8-09 (I have a 07 2wd EX listed as scheduled to be built 8-09) even though it is 8-29.

    It's hard to get an approximate delivery time until the factory kicks everything into production, then we can start with estimates.
  • Options
    ccacpccacp Member Posts: 117
    Could you tell us when the first EX-L navi will be built ? Will they come from Japan, England or Ohio ? I have heard a couple of weeks ago that they will be available in December.

    Thanks in advance
  • Options
    robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Why does it matter so much where they will be built? I own a virtually flawless 98 Accord (now with 160K miles) that was built in Ohio, a flawless 00 Civic (now with 65K miles) built in Ontario and owned a 00 Prelude (built in Japan) which was flawless too. And am getting ready to bring home a TL next week that is built in Ohio.
  • Options
    jmurman42jmurman42 Member Posts: 675
    I couldn't tell you. I have EX-L's showing but no Navis right now. I have build dates up to 9/26...which would mean mid Nov deliveries, so it would be after that.
  • Options
    varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    The SH-AWD unit in the RDX weighs in about 110 lbs heavier than the RT4WD unit for the CR-V. Plus all the other things Juice listed.

    "Remember, Consumer Reports (last month maybe?) had the new RAV4 4 cylinder quicker than the outgoing CR-V, and the new one is heavier. Don't make any bets for Pinks, you'll probably lose."

    True, but the 1st gen CR-V was lighter than the 2nd. And yet the second was both faster and more fuel efficient.

    Comparing at the gear ratios between the 2006 and 2007 models, it looks like Honda has gone back to the extremely short gearing they used for the 1st gen. And while the 3rd gen is heavier, we're only talking about 50lbs. So, the 2007 could very well seem quicker than the 2006.
  • Options
    varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Well... Varmint is a much happier CR-V fan. The nose is still freakin' ugly, but these new specs are much more promising than the ones rumored earlier. (yyssys needs a beating.) ;)

    If the interior is more or less the same size as the old model, I think this CR-V has a chance. I think the interior styling, content, pricing, performance, and pretty much everything else is looking very good. Honda has a chance of keeping their market share if people can get over the looks.
  • Options
    drive62drive62 Member Posts: 637
    Are you a politician? (j/k I know you're not).

    Hopefully the sales will prove your initial prediction wrong and your revised prediction correct :D .
  • Options
    drive62drive62 Member Posts: 637
    Why does it matter so much where they will be built?

    Some may prefer that their Japanese vehicle actually comes from Japan. YMMV.
  • Options
    robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Time to change that idea. I have never understood the point. Besides, most Hondas are manufactured here in the USA, and have been since 1982.
  • Options
    stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "
    Have you even looked at specifications on autodeadline? This is official from Honda (note the date and place on top). It will be posted "as is" at Honda's website in a few days. THAT is not just another car site that is faking numbers."

    I suggest you read the headline, especially the date of 1 September, 2006. Today is the 29th. There is no such memo on the official Honda website. Those numbers may be correct, or they may not be correct.

    Don't get me wrong, it would be great if those numbers are correct. But I am suspicious of a "Honda link" that doesn't have a link involved.
  • Options
    harvey44harvey44 Member Posts: 178
    Our first non-japanese honda is the 2006 Civic ex MT. We have a 2006 CRV that is Japanese. You can definately notice the difference. In those 5 cars, spanning 25 years of ownership I've had 3 warrantee issues - all of those are on the 2006 Civic and it is only one month old.

    M
  • Options
    vcarrerasvcarreras Member Posts: 247
    From what I can remember through 1995, Accords sold east of the Mississippi River were U.S. built and west came from Japan. My 95 Accord EX, bought in Texas was from Japan as is my 07 FIT. Both are solid. Had an 05 Ody, purchased, Oct. 04 built in Alabama not well finished. The headliner around the rear hatch came out, rear air conditioning control fell out and lots of rattles. Honda hopefully has improved the quality control on those built here.
  • Options
    robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    That is why I called it unofficially official. There is (typically) an embargo involved to release official info/test drives and it happens to be Sep 1. That date arrives and you will see the exact page posted on Honda's website. Just hold your breath for two days, instead of drawing conclusions based on specs of a different vehicle.
  • Options
    varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    06 CR-V vs 06 Civic?

    You're comparing a CR-V that has had the bugs worked out over the course of five years with a Civic that is in it's first year.

    Had you bought a 2002 CR-V in it's initial run, it would have been towed from your home or office back to the dealership for a seatbelt recall only weeks after it went on sale. You'd also be looking forward to a seat which rocks back and forth and brakes that "clunk". There were a number of other issues with the first run of the CR-V, and yes that includes the ones from Japan.
  • Options
    varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    I consistently made it clear that my earlier remarks were based on the information we had at the time. With changes in that information, I'd be an idiot (not a politician), if I didn't change my opinions.
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The 2nd gen had really short gearing on the MT5 models, but I guess that wasn't the case on the auto. Short gearing might help acceleration but then they'd give up a few MPGs. I'm not sure if that's a good idea nowadays.

    As for CR-V vs. RDX, I expect the former to have more room. The Pilot is bigger than the MDX inside, so there is a precedent. Plus, in pics the CR-V seems taller, so I bet it fits more cargo.

    harvey: you bought a v1.0. I'm sure that has a lot more to do with your 3 issues then the place of manufacture. Honda has won all kinds of awards for their plants here.

    -juice
  • Options
    thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    all of those are on the 2006 Civic and it is only one month old.


    Keep in mind, you bought a first year model, known for problems in any make of cars.

    We had a 2003 Accord EX built in Japan that had numerous rattles and build goofs, one that included removing part of the headliner.

    Dad's 2005 was built in Ohio, and had MUCH better initial quality, and less rattles in the long haul so far (he kept the 2003 about the same length he's had the 2005 right now, or 55,000 miles or so). That Japanese 2003 was a rattle-trap compared to our 05 and 06, both built in Ohio.
  • Options
    harvey44harvey44 Member Posts: 178
    I'm comparing 4 Japanese built Hondas to one Canadian built Honda. I'm a honda guy and I love my Civic, but it's not well assembled. It may be a coincidence.

    M
  • Options
    guestguest Member Posts: 770
    Nissan has had terrible luck regarding quality with their Armada and other products in the US. The same could be said for the BMW X5 in the initial years and Mercedes. And there are many other examples so I would rather buy a vehicle made in Japan.

    I think Honda has done a great job with the 2007 CRV. The apprearance mixes styling cues from BMW and Volvo. Love the crease along the side. The front end does not bother me and I love the headlights. Overall a much more upscale appearence in my opinion. Infiniti and Lexus are going to launch new small crossovers next year that will price about $10,000 more than the CRV.

    My girlfriend has a 2004 CRV and the interior is weird with all the contrasting cheap plastics, downscale appearance, weird ergonomics and cheap sounding stereo. Her CRV also does not seem well insulated, too much road noise comes in the cabin.

    Honda has made a great choice moving to an upscale appearance like the Acura RDX. This will probably allow them to compete well with the Toyota RAV4 which does not have an upscale appearance, more on the sporty side.

    Well Done Honda
  • Options
    robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Okay, calm down now. He is one of the most sensible posters I have seen, here on Edmunds and elsewhere. He is speaking his mind, just like all of us are expected to do.

    He disagreed with stats/info provided earlier, and doesn't like the nose on the new CR-V. I don't either.
  • Options
    bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    I'm with you on this one, harvey. There are always exceptions, but, all else being equal, I'll take one built in Japan, thank you very much. Mechanical reliability may not be related to manufacturing location, but I think Japanese-built models have superior fit and finish quality. The last Japanese-built model we owned was our '97 CR-V. Rattle-free after 5 years, with perfectly aligned panel gaps. Not so since, with CL-S, Accord, and to a lesser degree, TL.
  • Options
    joecarnutjoecarnut Member Posts: 215
    Car and Driver has a ton of new pictures in and out of the CR-V.
    Looks Nice!
    Car And Driver
    Look at "Photos" under multimedia.
  • Options
    c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    While I agree that the Japanese produced Hondas have had their share of problems, they have been slightly better in my experience, especially in terms of fit and finish. I have seen some pretty bad interior fit problems on Canadian and US produced Hondas (the MDX and Odyssey were known for this in the early days).
  • Options
    c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    Damn, that front end is going to be hard to look at.... almost looks like a boat with a car hood.
  • Options
    joecarnutjoecarnut Member Posts: 215
    I like the cr-v but the wheels on the LX are terrible.
  • Options
    bostnwhalrbostnwhalr Member Posts: 128
    The navy blue color looks to hide that controversial beak (which I could live with, since I'll be driving most of the time anyway). The rest of the vehicle looks to be a nice package. The interior looks particularly impressive compared with the RAV-4. I rented A RAV4 from Budget recently. I liked it overall, but the rear hatch reminded me too much of my Isuzu Trooper hatch. Also, the quality of the materials inside were just ok and rear seat was small (you had to extend the headrest completely to get any real support). The power, ride quality and overall driving characteristics were great however. Very decent acceleration with the 4cyl. No problem getting up to 70-80 and holding that speed. Plenty of power.

    I think that if you can do w/o the V-6, the CR-V is the way to go. If you need a V-6 or puny 3rd row seat, then it's not. Too bad the 3.0L V-6 from the Accord wasn't offered in the CR-V. Even that motor would be relatively impressive and you wouldn't interfere with the 3.5 V-6 in the Pilot.
  • Options
    bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    I can live with the styling from most angles, even the odd rear quarter windows, but, man, that front end is Fugly! Looks like 2 different cars superimposed onto each other! The front is just plain ugly from any and all angles. :cry: I thought Honda had hit rock bottom with the rear end of the Accord, but they have now outdone themselves. :sick:
  • Options
    turbocrvturbocrv Member Posts: 19
    imageimage
    imageimage
    imageimage
    imageimage
    imageimage
    imageimage
    imageimage
    imageimage
    imageimage
    imageimage
    imageimage
    imageimage
    imageimage
    imageimage
    imageimage
    imageimage
    image
  • Options
    harvey44harvey44 Member Posts: 178
  • Options
    drive62drive62 Member Posts: 637
    The navy blue color looks to hide that controversial beak (which I could live with, since I'll be driving most of the time anyway).

    Someone with the right attitude about the front end. When I am driving a vehicle I'm not looking at the front end. And I certainly don't care what anyone else thinks of it. YMMV
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Nissan has had terrible luck regarding quality

    Yes, but our point is Honda hasn't. One exception doesn't change that.

    Look at Toyota - the big recall that invovled the Prius and other models affected ONLY models that were made in Japan.

    The US transplants for the established brands have done quite well, including Honda, Toyota, and Subaru. Nissan, Mercedes, and BMW have had problems.

    The navy blue color looks to hide that controversial beak

    That I agree with. But the gen II also looked better in dark colors, since the black plastic bumper wrapped up around the sides of its grille.

    -juice
  • Options
    bostnwhalrbostnwhalr Member Posts: 128
    Thanks. I indeed can live with the nose, but I'm not so sure I could deal if the whole vehicle was ugly.

    The rest of the CR-V package looks great.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles