Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
The new-for-2003 Forester has a wider track and aluminum roof rails, to increase stability lower the center of gravity. So the new one might earn 4 stars, it has not been tested yet.
My '98 Forester will power slide all 4 tires without even hinting at tilting over. I have a fatter-than-stock rear sway bar and it also tends to wag the tail in the snow, an extremely fun characteristic once you learn to control it. Stock setup is neutral, BTW.
I'm sure the new CR-V is also wider; I'm not sure about height. My wife tested one last year and it's a lot taller, to be honest there's no way I would drive it the way I drive my Forester.
Foresters are all made in Japan at a plant in Gunma, and you'll have some of that "New Car Stench" as the undercoating burns off the exhaust. It's applied to make the trip across the Pacific. Happily, it doesn't last long.
Check out the new Consumer Reports issue, they just tested the new Forester and rated it best in class. They also test an Element, for reference.
-juice
Those extra ponies require upgrades to many engine components. You'd need a new head to get the variable timing, lift, and phase control on the exhaust valves (the CR-V uses those only on the intake). Of course, a new computer would be required to monitor all that. It's possible that you would need to upgrade the entire air intake system from filter to valve. The radiator might need work, and the exhaust system would definately be in need of modification.
A turbo or super-charger would be more effective for less money. Though, either of those may have a greater negative impact on fuel economy, emissions, and longevity.
-juice
The Acura TSX's 4cyl i-vtec does push 200HP but only gets 166ft/lb of torque. How's that going to help speed up a heavy CR-V? You probably get that 200HP @ 7000 rpm.
Face it: You won't see CRV's in the "The Fast and the Furious 2"
Face it: You won't see CRV's in the "The Fast and the Furious 2"
You won't see ANY small SUV in "The Fast and the Furious 2"!!!!!!!!!!!
LOLOLOLOL
The Forester handles much more like a car. Both have excellent crash test scores.
Dimensions for both per Honda. CR-V then Forester.
Curb Weight (Automatic, lbs.) 3347 3140
Wheelbase (in.) 103.1 99.4
Track Width Front (in.) 60.4 58.9
Track Width Rear (in.) 60.6 58.5
Length (in.) 178.6 175.2
Width (in.) 70.2 68.1
Height (in.) 66.2 65.0
Ground Clearance (in.) 8.1 7.5
Passenger Volume (cu. ft., mfr.) 106.0 93.5
Maximum Cargo Volume (cu. ft.) 72.0 64.1
Headroom (Front, in.) 38.9 39.8
Headroom (Second-Row, in.) 39.1 39.8
Legroom (Front, in.) 41.3 43.6
Legroom (Second-Row, in.) 39.4 33.7
Shoulder Room (Front, in.) 56.9 53.5
Shoulder Room (Second-Row, in.) 56.5 53.6
Hiproom (Front, in.) 54.5 51.6
Hiproom (Second-Row, in.) 53.5 51.6
Tow Capacity (Standard, lbs.) 1500 2400
Tow Capacity (Maximum, lbs.) 1500 2400
Backseat comfort was a major factor in my decision. IMO the backseat of the CR-V is the best in the class. It's raised so back seat drivers can see out the front. Both seats slide and recline. Foot room in the Forester was, IMO, a joke. The reclining seats in the Forester were odd too, only the middle two thirds recline, the sides stay upright. And I liked the walk-through feature. Granted, it isn't a hallway, it's just a semi-easy way to access the back it you really need to.
MPG was very similar.
The only thing I really wanted that the CR-V didn't have but the Subie did are the windshield de-icers. In Michigan, that'd be a big plus.
Overall, I felt I was getting more with the CR-V in a package that fit my needs best.
BTW, the reclining seats have been gone since 2001 IIRC, so you're talking about a Forester that was freshened in 2001 and then redesigned for 2003.
The front windshield de-icers are nice, and 2003 models have them even on the rear window wiper, not to mention the heated seats, heated mirrors, rear LSD, weather band radio, and full-time AWD. For snowy climates, those extras are really nice. In Florida you might think they're a waste, which may be why Subarus don't sell many there. Perhaps you've seen both of them. :-)
The Forester XT (turbo) will be available this month with 235 lb-ft of torque, with an invoice price starting at $23.3k (with freight), and it includes every thing I mentioned in the previous paragraph.
-juice
That's still a few more ft-lbs of torque than the CR-V's 162. And it is spread across the rev band. At 2,000 rpms, the TSX's 2.4 is making more torque than the CR-V's. So, it's not necessarily a high revver, even though the peak output is higher.
To answer your question, I *think* peak HP comes at 6,800 rpms. The redline is 7,100 rpms (that part, I'm sure of). Both figures are only a few hundred higher than the CR-V.
Would this engine improve the performance of the CR-V? Absolutely. More power is more power (as long as it makes it to the wheels). Contrary to the belief of some, you simply don't need 300 ft-lbs of torque to move a vehicle weighing less than 3,400 lbs.
Would using this engine be a good idea? Probably not. It requires premium for max output. I don't think that buyers of an economy SUV will be happy about having to pay full price at the pump (nor do I think they will be drag racing). The UK and JDM Accords use a version of the 2.4L that produces about 190 hp without the need for premium fuel. That's a better option.
Okay smarty pants, what would you do? I think the best move for Honda would be to modify and use the 5 speed auto and 6 speed manual from the UK Accord/TSX. Both could improve performance, smoothness, and economy without too many trade-offs.
forgiving because it was long and low CG.My CRV
lets you know it does not like being flung around.
Driven sanely it is OK but no sportscar.If you
want fun get a Forester and if you want room get
the CRV.The Forester is coming out with a Turbo
Charger so you can grin all the way to the Mall.
Thanks, Ark
They are the dynamic duo, sun or snow. They complement each other perfectly.
Ark: park it and make an appt with your dealer asap. You probaly lost a retaining clip or something is wedged between the pad and the rotor. Fix it soon or you'll need a new rotor.
-juice
Just a thought. One of the nice things about our CR-V was the low rate in comparison to other vehicles.
Matrix
Forester
RAV4
Jetta TDI Wagon
Outback
All were at least (I think) $300 more per year.
Some speculate that this is normal. When the brakes heat up, they expand a bit and fit the brackets more securely. Others claim that explanation is bunk.
Whether you consider it a "problem" or just a "characteristic" is up to you. All I can tell you is that the brakes are not failing.
-juice
frayed.To prevent further fraying I put a pair
of socks on the armrests.I just happen to have some red/white/blue with stars on them, looks cool.Hindsight being 20/20 I should have gotten the black interior, the tan shows dirt too easy.
My Miata costs more, and it's "recreational use only".
My little sister just bought one and she's 19, the delta between that and a 4 cyl Camry or Accord was insignificant, something like $20 per year.
So...buy what you prefer, I guess.
-juice
Our old 95' Neon with plpd was over $600. With no tickets or accidents in 7 years.
I pay around $1000 a year for the CR-V.
33 - married - 14,000 miles a year.
I think you brought up a good point, though, get a quote from your agent just in case.
An XT will surely cost more, maybe 10-20% more than an XS, but...you gotta pay to play. It also uses premium fuel. I think the target demographic won't mind much as long as it's quick as Subaru of Canada has claimed. Only the Saturn Vue Redline (Honda engine, to bring this sorta back on topic) can keep up in this price class.
-juice
And it won't need premium fuel. If we got a turbo I'd have to install an engine timer. I don't think my wife would be keen on letting the oil drain for 60-120 seconds after reaching her destination.
I'm with USAA and have shopped for rates. I can't get anything lower. Actually, using insweb.com my rates would jump significantly with Kemper or Progressive. Almost another $1000 with Kemper. Of course, now I do have an accident to report...&^#$@%*&@^!!!!!!!!!
Maybe the Vue Redline will require mid-grade. LOL!
Modern turbos are supposedly better and don't require the same kind of cool down, the WRX for instance hasn't had any occasions where the turbo got cooked. If it were mine, I tend to drive slowly the last mile or two because I'd be in a residential area, so it's not a big concern any way.
Bummer about the accident, was is the P5 or the CR-V? If it's under a grand in damage you might want to consider paying out of your pocket, you don't want that dreaded "C" (for claim) on your record.
Hope noone was hurt.
-juice
Now the P5 is more costly to insure than the V.
I was only going 5-8 mph but, it was an older Cruiser with a big chrome bumper and a big trailer hitch. The hatch still ran fine, it just looked like heck. New hood, fenders, headlights, bumper cover, and A/C. If you would have seen it after they were done fixing it you would have never known. It was the best repair job I've ever seen.
-juice
Wonder what the results would have been with side airbags? Aren't most (70%?) CR-Vs sold of the EX variety? Do the side airbags protect the head? http://www.hondacars.com/models/safety.asp?ModelName=CR-V Anyone have a pic?
The Forester's are standard side air bags that stretch up to protect the head (apparently well, it earned a "Good" rating").
I think the Saturn Vue has curtain bags, but optional. Without them it did "Poor". I'm sure it would be better with them.
The real disappointment is the Element, they added all that weight to beef up the side structure and it got a lousy score. :-(
-juice
Escape has them optional, and they also protect the head. The scores improved drastically with the bags. Ford paid for the test, else IIHS would not have done it.
I guess Honda didn't offer to help fund the test like Ford did, so the EX was not tested.
-juice
I don't think the IIHS faq says, but I'm guessing that the IIHS buys the cheapest testers they can find - base models mostly w/o side air bags. So the CR-V tested was an LX w/o the optional air bags.
Steve, Host
Honda only had to pay IIHS about $22k to test a CR-V with side airbags. Ford did this, and as a result, there were two Escapes tested.
Why didn't Honda do it? Part of it could be that even with side airbags, the CR-V wouldn't have done as well as the Forester or airbag-equipped Escape. Note the "marginal" structure/safety cage score for the CR-V in IIHS's test. Side airbags won't help here:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/s0307.htm
I bet that Honda didn't want the side-airbagged CR-V to be tested. $22k is petty cash for Honda. They also perform their own internal testing, and probably already know the IIHS side-impact methodology (which has been under development for a few years now).
Perhaps Honda is going to add new side curtain airbags to next year's CR-V, and then pay IIHS to retest that vehicle. That would boost the head injury scores for both the front and rear occupants and would help offset the structure/safety cage score.
The three areas where the CR-V scored low (marginal) were head protection, torso, and structure.
"Honda-style" airbags would almost certainly help with the torso scores. That is what they are designed to do. They cover the upper portion of the door panel.
The score for head injuries may also improve. Though I don't expect it would earn a "good" rating. The dummy used in this test is the size of a 12 year old. So the head is positioned rather low. In the test, the head struck the window sill, which is an area that torso bags may cover. Even if they don't, the bag would help keep the body in an upright position. (I tired to find picks of the deployment path, but couldn't find them.)
Because of the marginal structure score, I expect the results with airbags might be "acceptable" rather than "good". But that is still an improvement.
So even with side airbags, the score wouldn't be "good" and I think Honda doesnt want to admit that. Else they would have given the IIHS $22k to test a CR-V with side airbags.
Adding side curtains may well improve the score to "good" despite the structure/safety cage score.
BTW, getting back to engines: Doesn't it stink that GM is buying 3.5L Vtech engines from Honda for the Vue and Honda doesn't even try to shoe horn the motor in its own CRV first?
What you see on the video may be deceiving. Check the IIHS site, and it turns out that the Escape's intrusion measurements were "Acceptable" while the CR-V's were "Marginal" (worse).
Honda's probably glad that the Dateline segment simply harped on the lack of head protection, and didn't talk about intrusion.
Also, the Escape's front side airbags provide head protection, which the CR-V's do not. So just testing a CR-V with its side airbags isn't going to match the Escape's score. Though it'll likely improve it.
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_smsuv_overall- .htm
The overall crash test champ, according to IIHS, is the Forester.
but was British otherwise.Still a piece of...
Most are in junkyards now.Seems a shame but
Honda needs money like everyone else.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
At about the same time, Honda was selling a rebadged version of the Discovery. I believe this was Honda's first foray into the SUV market. Had things worked out with Rover (BMW bought them out from under Honda's nose), we may not have seen the Isuzu clones here in the states. Can't say for sure, though.
Good suggestion. Hopefully tests like these will pressure manufacturers to make them more available.
joey: not yet! I went to test drive a Saturn Vue Redline, and they said not until next year, probably Spring! I drove a regular V6/auto and was disappointed, in fact the CR-V 2.4l with a manual tranny is peppier. Smoother too.
But then I drove a Forester XT (turbo) with a 5 speed, and it blows them all away. I would not be surprised if some testers match WRX acceleration numbers. The thing feels like a V8, at least with the manual (the auto wasn't nearly as fun).
Don't drive one unless you plan on buying it, because now everything else I drive seems painfully slow. Maybe the Vue Redline can challenge it, we'll see.
-juice
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/william.whittaker1/800.htm
As to a Honda version of the Discovery, that is a new one...
Honda sells a 3.5L VTEC equiped SUV. The Pilot. Why would they want to add the same V6 to the CR-V?
The CR-V could be tuned to be sporty, imagine a Type S or an Open Air. That V6 may not be the ideal engine, but the CR-V is certainly capable of being far more sporty than the Pilot.
-juice
I'm thinking that an Element Si would be more a interesting package than a sport model CR-V.
Does the Pilot use regular fuel? What about the MDX? I'm curious, the Redline is supposed to get a 250hp version of the 3.5l, so I wonder what fuel it will require.
-juice
tm01: even the low hanging parts of the exhaust are now more than 8" off the ground. It's tucked in better than the 1st gen. CR-V's was, and noone complained about those pipes getting scraped.
-juice