2001 - 2006 Honda CR-Vs

2003crv · January 2003

Thanks for asking, robmarch. The screws are freely turning, but not coming out. I tried both sides, same problem. Looks like the screws are not "biting" the plastic. Any suggestions?

ateixeira · January 2003

The P5 is nice, I drove one when I was at a Mazda dealer buying parts for my Miata. Just beware - I'm finding parts prices are steep at Mazda dealers.

With no Fit/Jazz at your Honda dealer though, you're forced to leave Honda if you want a small wagon.

-juice

icvci · January 2003

Try using needlenose pliers to pull up the screw as you turn it. Or, put a small knife blade under the screw, prying up gently as you turn it.

varmint · January 2003

I have a 02 manual LX CR-V, so I don't know if manual and auto trannies run the same rpms on tach or not.

The 5 speed is actually geared lower (numerically higher) than the automatic. So a 5 speed will rev higher than the auto. The 97-01 models were geared even lower than the 2002+ vehicles.

2003crv · January 2003

I'll try what you suggested.

jedai · January 2003

scname's rpm-speed numbers match mine. The fourth gear ratio of 02/03 CRV AT looks quite speed independent. BTW you should divide the speed by rpm to get miles-per-revolution. For example, 1500rpm@40mph maps to 0.000444444 miles per engine revolution. So 70mph might be least efficient... Driving within legal speed will be more gas efficient as we lose less on air resistance.

scname · January 2003

70 divided by 60 by 2500 is 0.0004667 I still say 70mph is most fuel efficient ( if my readings are accurate.)

I know everyone says car is most efficient at lower speeds ( less wind drag ) , but.......

ateixeira · January 2003

Wind resistance increase with the square of speed, and the CR-V is *not* aerodynamically slippery.

I bet you'll get far better mileage at 55mph vs. 70mph in the same gear.

-juice

scname · January 2003

Definitely not in the same gear. there are other factors at play here also, engine induction, gear ratio, tire rolling resistance and whatever I don't know about.

What really amazes me is the minute difference in miles per rev from 40 to 80, only about 5% difference throughout the range. So as long as you cruise constant speed without stop and go, you get about same mileage.

basset3 · January 2003

Thank you to everyone who's responded to my question regarding engine revs at highway speeds.

Knowing that you folks responded promptly and accurately leads me now to the nearest Honda dealership to work out a deal on a CRV EX automatic.

I can still remember the '99 CRV engine(it was an automatic) sounding like it was about to throw a rod right out the side of the engine. But then again, I never heard of that happening on a Honda, they're engines are so durable.

Again, thank you everyone for your responses.

tidester · January 2003

I used the number to calculate the least revolution the engine turns per mph. The lowest number occur at 70 mph. Maybe this is the most fuel efficient speed ?

It is true that the rev/speed ratio in your data set is smallest when the speed is 70. However, I suggest that you make a graph of rev/speed vs. speed. You will see a VERY jagged graph! I doubt you can conclude anything useful from that.

A more meaningful graph, IMO, would be to plot revs against the square of the speed since the work done by the engine is proportional the rpm's while the kinetic energy of the vehicle varies as the square of the speed. This graph is monotonic and more or less linear. (Actually, we're talking power but energy is a convenient quantity.)

tidester, host

scname · January 2003

You are just making it more complicated than need be.

I'm guessing the transmission is in second at 40, 3rd at 55 and shifts into 4th overdrive at or below 70 mph. Wind drag for each gear is lowest at the lowest speed for that gear, highier as speed increase in that gear, explains the jagged graph. Thus we get best fuel economy as transmission first shifts into overdrive.

tidester · February 2003

That could be but when you plot it out the jaggedness of the graph is extreme! I'm just not sure one can draw any conclusions.

tidester, host

stoli25 · February 2003

I'm just buying new CRV and was just interested how many of you bought extendet warrany.
Is it really worth it?

crv139 · February 2003

i bought the honda extended warranty the 7yr/ 75000 mile zero deductable for 750. If you r going to keep your vehicle longer then the 3yr 36000 miles then get it. Just one major repair you got your money back. Its a gamble.

bjsolo · February 2003

Is there any chance that Honda will replace the swing out back door with a swing up back door? This is the only feature of the car that I do not like.

andries · February 2003

I just cannot believe the people that would rather have the back door swing up. This is the one change we most definately find the best over our explorer. The wife finds it a much easier task, especially when your short, or the back end is dripping with mud and slush. Would not even consider a swing up anymore, the only change is maybe swinging open from curb side instead.

theracoon · February 2003

My guess is that it's very unlikely Honda will change the rear door to a swing up. They'd have to find a different method or place to mount the spare tire, since a swing up door wouldn't be able to support the weight.

JM2C

ssoto1 · February 2003

To crv139 what honda dealer gave you the ext warr. on your CR-V for 700 I'm looking to get an ext. warr. on my 2002 CR-V Thanks.

crv139 · February 2003

go to hondawarranty.com They have the best prices.

tomsr · February 2003

I have 15K on my CRV and I noticed the rocking seat.Is this a warranty issue and an easy fix?
Still glad I got the CRV instead of Escape because the fit and finish is way above Ford.The Ford would be more fun because of power though.

imyodaddy · February 2003

Has anyone noticed a degradation in the quality of the CRV's now that they are built in Britain?

bjsolo · February 2003

Thanks for the comments on the back door. I prefer the back door swinging up because it requires less space to open, you don't have to worry about blocking access to the sidewalk, and if it's raining, it provides shelter. It rains a lot here in Seattle.

I currently own an '86 Nissan Stanza Wagon (one of the orginal mini-SUVs) and its rear door swings up. I guess I've gotton used to it after 16 years.

Thanks again for your comments.

artdecho · February 2003

Didn't one of the Wally wagons from the 70's have a tailgate that opened two ways? Flip down or to the side? (I think it was a Ford)Maybe Honda could make one that flips up or opens sideways!!! Actually, i'm kinda liking the tailgate on the Element. A small flip down part.....makes a great seat, plus a flip up part for some protection from the elements (is there a pun there?!) I don't think they'd have any problem enlarging the cavity in the floor a bit to accept either a donut or full-size spare.

varmint · February 2003

If Honda were going to change the design of the rear door, they'd have done it for the 2002 redesign. It was a controversial feature on the original CR-V. The fact that Honda did not change it, is a good indicator that the cost/benefit analysis still favors keeping costs down by having it work the same way it does in other markets.

As long as we're weighing in with opinions on the subject, I actually prefer the right-side hinge. It may block the curb at loading, but it's more convenient for the driver. The handle is on the driver's side and it swings away from him/her. If it were hinged on the other side, you'd have to walk around the back of the vehicle and step aside each time you open it.

imyodaddy - No one has shown any kind of proof (statistical or annecdotal) that the UK built CR-V is inferior to those built in Japan. In fact, one could make a case for the UK CR-Vs being better as all the initial production problems were found with the units built in Sayama.

icvci · February 2003

Okay, I know this has been discussed before but, let's do it again.

I changed the oil in my mother's 02 Civic EX Friday and the owners manual says to use 5W-20 ONLY. It says you can subsitute 5W-30 but, to change it to 5W-20 at the next oil change.

I then read the manual in our V and it says the same thing.

I have always used Castrol or Mobil synthetic oil at what ever viscosity the engine called for. Neither of these manufacturers makes a synthetic 5W-20.

Wha't this all about? Seriously, how much difference can this make?

varmint · February 2003

Do you mean the difference between synthetic and dino oil? Or are you questioning the use of 5W-20 versus 5W-30?

robmarch · February 2003

I was mystified by the 5w20 vs 5w30 also. Honda sells a lot of cars, though, so expect synthetic 5w20 to hit the market soon, if it hasn't already

reed4 · February 2003

icvci,

I changed the original 5w-20 at 4550 miles and replaced it with Amsoil 5w-20 full synthetic. Amsoil offers numerous viscosities but I opted to stay with what Honda recommends. What ended up being and unexpected benefit was, immediately following the oil change, my city/highway mileage has consistently increased 1.8 to 2.2 MPG.

Reed
02 CR-V EX Auto

icvci · February 2003

I was wondering why they basically demand you use 5W-20.

As I understand it, many Ford engines require 5W-20. I ended up buying a 5W-20 synthetic blend. But, was irked by the lack of a full synthetic at any of my local automotive stores.

Ford sells a ton of cars, and if they have engines that require 5W-20 (and have for a couple of years) why isn't there any readily available 5W-20 full synthetic on the market? I found a ton of non synth oil. And why can't you subsitute the 30 for the 20?

ateixeira · February 2003

I prefer the Element's rear gate setup, too. You have space for a tail gate party plus shade or shelter from the rain. But I'd like to see them fit a full size spare some how.

By the way, you can't just look at engine rpms and calculate gas mileage. You're overlooking the throttle position, which is very important.

Say you approach a hill in your 5 speed. You floor it to maintain your current speed, and the whole time speed and engine rpms are constant. But you're using a LOT more gas to climb that hill.

Same goes for carrying extra weight (full payload vs. just the driver), or overcoming cross winds, coarse pavement, a flat tire, etc.

If you're cruising at 55mph, it's easy to maintain that speed even with very little throttle. If instead you drive 70mph, you'll need a lot more throttle to keep up on hills, plus maybe a little extra throttle to overcome the extra drag. So I doubt mileage would match the same trip at 55mph.

-juice

icvci · February 2003

Check out these sites

http://www.mobil1.com/index.jsp

I like to use Mobil1 and many of their statments completely refute what most people will tell you.
Check out the FAQ sections under many of the headings at the top of the page.

And then there is the Amsoil site

http://www.performanceoiltechnology.com/ford5w20.htm

Hmmmmmmmm.......

varmint · February 2003

A note on that Amsoil explanation...

I cannot speak for Ford, but Honda's car and truck fleet is not even close to the minimum requirements for CAFE standards. The CAFE standards are based on average fuel economy. The rundown for Honda trucks would be something like this:

CR-V (auto) 24 mpg
CR-V (manual) 23 mpg
Ody 22.5 mpg
Pilot 19 mpg

But CAFE standards also take into account sales volume. This prevents manufacturers from offering one completely undesirable model with good fuel economy, while the rest are guzzlers. CAFE regs will slap a guzzler tax on a manufacturer that fails to meet the 20.7 minimum. If they sell too many of the gas guzzlers, they get fined.

But Honda sells way more CR-Vs and Odys than Pilots. They probably clear the 20.7 line by more than 2 mpg. The idea that they need to scrape for every 10th of a mpg seems ludicrous when compared to the fleet averages for DCX, GM, and others who sell even more big trucks without using 5W-20 oil.

ateixeira · February 2003

varmint's right, Honda is well above the CAFE threshold.

In fact, domestic manufacturers favored forcing a percentage increase in fuel efficiency for that exact reason - Honda would have more work to do. Of course that discriminates against those who are doing well now, so I doubt it would ever become law.

-juice

varmint · February 2003

It's also the reason why Honda is the only major manufacturer to go in front of congress and say, "yes, we can hike fuel economy minimums and still stay in business". All the others said, "no way".

Frankly, I dunno why Toyota didn't do it. They've been making huge improvements in their SUV fleet. The new RX330 has better fuel economy than some of the mini-utes. The RAV4 and their minivan are no slouches, either.

ateixeira · February 2003

Well, Toyota sells a Tundra, and lots of big trucks, an area where Honda doesn't compete. Those are major cash cows for them. $40 grand for a Sequoia, think about it.

Toyota is a true full-line manufacturer, Honda really isn't. They lack a big and a small pickup, and full-size SUVs.

Even with cars, Toyota has the Avalon while Honda stops at Camry-size.

Any how, Honda should be proud of their CAFE numbers, and that's why they're in front of Congress. I bet Suzuki easily surpasses CAFE standards, too, but they also don't sell large vehicles.

-juice

robmarch · February 2003

what about Subaru? AWD hurts them, but they don't have any very large vehicles, which seems to be the biggest factor.

ateixeira · February 2003

Actually, what kills them is that they certify all their vehicles as cars. So the standard is 27.5 instead of 20.7.

Look at it this way, the CR-V helps Honda sell more Pilots. The Forester hurts Subaru and forces them to sell more Imprezas and/or use up past credits. Yet they compete directly and get about the same mpg!

They've been borderline but have just made the cut, even with AWD. Their powertrains are efficient for their given displacement.

But even Subaru caved in and calls the new Baja a truck. It just wasn't feasible to meet the 27.5 and still make a profit while every competitor uses the truck loophole.

In fact I bet the next generation Forester is certified as a truck for that reason.

CAFE is done all wrong, anyway. The truck loophole was intended for work vehicles. All passenger vehicles should meet the same standard, but of course the lobbyists will never let that happen.

-juice

robmarch · February 2003

Agreed. And, all SUV's should have to meet the same crash standards 5mph bumper, etc., as cars also. Exempting farm trucks is one thing. Exempting a Ford Excursion that pulls "grocery store with carseat" duty is totally different.

ateixeira · February 2003

It's actually 2.5 mph in the US, but Canada requires 5 mph bumpers.

I'm not sure trucks require bumpers at all, you could get a Toyota pickup without any rear bumpers, at least a few years ago. I'm still not sure you can call the RAV4's bumperettes real bumpers.

FWIW, Honda may certify them as trucks, but at least they make sure they meet car standards. So they're using the loophole without cutting corners in safety terms.

-juice

varmint · February 2003

Yes, Toyota does have some big trucks, but they don't sell in the same volume as the domestic makes. They also have a greater advantage in terms of upping their average with car-based vehicles classified as trucks.

I look at it this way... Chevy and Ford sell more big trucks than anybody. They also have the fewest (percentage-wise) car-based vehicles to compensate for those big truck sales. If they can meet CAFE standards, Toyota should be clearing them fairly easily.

JM2C

As for Subaru, I expect Juice is correct. They have to meet the higher car standards and, while their engines are efficient, the AWD systems lower their mpg ratings. That means they don't raise the average as high as the fuel sippers of many other fleets. For example:

Accord 28.5
Camry 27.5
Legacy 25

Reclassifying the Forester as a truck would go a long way toward giving them some breathing room. A) It's rated low against the 27 mpg car standard.

It's one of Subaru's big volume sellers.

ateixeira · February 2003

FWIW, I think Toyota does clear the CAFE minimums easily.

I think Dodge was struggling a bit, but that's no big surprise given even the mid-size Durango gets low teens mileage. The PT Cruiser helps them because you can remove the rear seats, so the feds call it a minivan (another ridiculous loop hole).

Subaru needs to bring its AVCS technology from Japan. It's closer to BMW's VANOS than it is to Honda's VTEC, but it helps with emissions and fuel efficiency, so that'll be what keeps them over the CAFE minimums. They'll soon be selling more turbo and H6 engines, so eeking even the tiniest bit of extra efficiencies will become essential. For 2001 they were exactly at the 27.5 minimum, but they probably have some credits to use up.

-juice

varmint · February 2003

Juice - Do you know how the CAFE standards treat manufacturers with several brands under their control. For example, does GM get a boost from the more fuel efficient cars produced by their subsidiaries like Saturn?

ateixeira · February 2003

I'm not exactly sure, but my guess is wholly-owned subsidiaries are counted together.

I'm sure Honda would want to group Acura/Honda together, so that the CR-V and Element allow more MDX sales.

I really miss the Automotive News subscription I used to get at my old job - it had great information like that. They'd publish CAFE results for all the manufacturers. I also wish I had a photographic memory!

-juice

icvci · February 2003

How about their website?

http://www.autonews.com/

robmarch · February 2003

just out of curiosity, what did you guys pay for your 20k service? I'll tell you what I just paid after I know whether I got taken or not

stever · February 2003

Another reference point for you Robmarch:

The Edmunds Maintenance Guide

Steve, Host

carm3 · February 2003

i have a 2002 crv with 9000 mi and am very disappointed with the creeks and rattles coming from doors, seats ,sliding roof shade area, cargo
door area, you name it. if i hit the right bounces it drives me crazy. anyone else have these problems, if so how do i correct them.

reed4 · February 2003

carm3

I have a 2002 CR-V EX Auto with 8100 miles. 4000 of those miles was a recent trip which included several trips off road and some snow. I have yet to experience any of the creeks and rattles you have but I might suggest that you allow someone else drive your V while you ride along and closely investigate the location and source of the noises.

Good Luck......Reed

robmarch · February 2003

I checked there, but it wasn't up to date, it didn't look like. Looked like it was on the previous maintenance schedule.

I payed $130, by the way. Feels high, to me.

2001 - 2006 Honda CR-Vs

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles