There's a Honda CRV report in the May issue, complete with owner survey. Sorry if someone already reported this, just want to post something useful instead of all the bickering lately,
Does anyone know when Honda will be redesigning the CRV? I'm growing tired of the look since 97. I imagine they will be updating it since Toyota fixed up the RAV...Any ideas?
What is with all the complaining lately about the CRV? The reasons I bought my 2001 SE are this: #1-Honda quality #2-Great looking #3-Good gas milage #4- Very roomy interior #5-All wheel drive #6-Good ground clearance #7 Best vehicle in it's class. I did check out the competition and the CRV won Hands Down!If what you want is a noisy, ugly looking, big gas guzzler with lots of power to do things that most people don't do; the CRV is not for you.On the other hand if you want a reliable all wheel drive vehicle that is quiet and roomy the choice is easy!R.Bogey
Here is my list of REAL SUVs 1.Jeep Wrangler 2.Jeep Cherokee 3.Jeep Grand Cherokee (because they are the only midsizes with SOLID AXLES) 4.Hummer H1 (not H2) 5.Dodge Ramcharge 6.Dodge Durango 7.Suburbans and Yukon Z71s I have missed many old SUVs but there is to many to actually name. Also I encourage you CRVers to buy a 4wheeler, off-road, Four Wheeler, and JP magazine to see some real sport UTILITY VEHICLES.
Andy - I have driven off-road in both a C-J (woods) and a Cherokee (beach). Both are much more capable that the CR-V and a whole lot of fun. However, the fun was over as soon as we had to drive home. I had to force my 6'2" frame into the back of the C-J. It was like riding in the back of a pickup on a concrete block. I'd have felt safer riding a skateboard on the highway. The Cherokee was better, but my head hurt from bouncing off the ceiling. The beast has the most primitive, unforgiving, simply poor suspension of any car I've driven in. I had to check the dash to see if it was on spin cycle. The JGC is better, but not much. I've never been off-road in one, but on the road it waddles like a penguin. Bump suppression is much better than the classic Cherokee, but it almost dances from side to side.
If I wanted to head off-road for the sport of it, I'd buy a Wrangler or a modified Samurai as a third vehicle. However, I'd also buy a trailer to tow it to the trailhead and never, never, never let its tires touch pavement.
Here's a question for the REAL SUV fans on the board right now. What would you recommend to a buyer who wants a car/truck/van to do the following?
1. Drive to work everyday. 2. Get decent gas mileage. 3. Carry four people and enough stuff for a weekend of camping. 4. Be able to tackle unimproved roads (mud, washouts, ruts, high crowns,...) and the occasional trip onto the path not taken before. 5. Have decent traction for snowy weather. 6. Be safe enough for the family. 7. Not spend half it's life in the garage getting fixed.
Hi Just wanted to add my two cents...I would not classify the CRVs hokey system as all wheel drive..If you want to see all wheel drive, check out subaru..I am qualified to say this because I had a CRV and have a subaru (2nd one) and there is no comparison between the two systems!
Any suggestions on which, the CRV or subaru, has the more powerful engine? My last two cars were turbos, very fast, nice. I've never owned an suv and am doing research, pricing. I don't need to tow anything, don't race, but don't want to be pushing a lethargic engine. I'd like it to have good pick up and pass on the interstate. Also, gas mileage? Hate to sound so dumb, but we all start somewhere. Thanks for any insight on any aspect... Gina.
I have owned both... CRV hits: Interior Room, Ride, Holds Value CRV Minuses: Engine, Road Noise, hokey 4wd Subaru Hits: Engine, Lack of Road Noise, Real all wheel drive system Subaru Minuses: Interior room, Doesnt hold value as well as CRV I say test drive both...The 2001 Foresters have special financing now as does the CRV..A new CRV is due later this year..A new Forester next year..
Purduealum - The term "AWD" is as ambiguous as "SUV". Most of the time AWD refers to systems that are engaged automatically and require no driver intervention. RT4WD does fit into that gategory; as does VTM-4 and the system used in the Escape/Tribute. However, I would agree that it is not a traditional AWD system. Traditionally, AWD is constantly engaged. RT4WD is more like an automatically engaging 4X4.
As for comparisons between Soob's AWD and Honda's RT4WD, we'd have to install each system in the other company's cars to see which was better. There are too many differences in things like wheelbase, weight, suspension, and tires to make a proper comparisons of just the AWD. You'd also have to determine what "better" means since one is probably better at distributing power and the other is more efficient and reliable.
Gina - My recomendation would be the Soob Forester. It isn't a whole lot faster than the CR-V, but it's powerband is lower in the RPMs. Therefore, it has much more push off the line. It'll feel faster. Gas mileage averages about the same for both.
Skip the Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute. Both have very powerful engines, but gas mileage has been much lower than advertised.
If there is going to be a new CR-V in 6 months is it normal that there is no information about the redesign? Is Honda always so secretive? I would think they would want to tell people what they will be offering so that people who are looking to buy an SUV might wait for it rather than buying one of the new small SUVs.
"As for comparisons between Soob's AWD and Honda's RT4WD, we'd have to install each system in the other company's cars to see which was better."
I think when different publications do AWD comparison tests, they put the vehicles through a variety of typically handling tests, and possibly a split-mu test. This is how Popular Science has done it, and how they have compared the different systems. I remember one test a few years ago, where the Range Rover's traction controlled permanent 4WD system was ranked the most effective and consequently the best, since it worked at all times, and the only system that allowed the vehicle to climb up the split-mu grade with no problems.
Subaru's system might arguably be better since it is smarter, and it is pro-active rather than reactive like the CR-V's system. But then, that's another discussion for the Subaru Forester vs. Honda CR-V topic :-).
Good luck, Drew Host Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Drew - I'm not saying that you cannot compare the performance of two vehicles. But it's difficult to make a blanket statement about two different AWD systems in two different vehicles. There are way too many variables. Simply the tires alone can make a huge difference. Shoe that Range Rover with a set of bald sneakers and compare it with with a 2WD Camry that is wearing new Blizzaks.
Honda is always secretive about their new models. As CandianCL points out, it is difficult to sell the old models when a new and improved one is right around the corner. As a company, Honda has been one of the most sucessful at hiding their new designs from spy photographers and those who would leak information. We should be getting more news soon, but I wouldn't expect reliable information until this Summer.
I just sold my 1999 CR-V LX 4WD after a little over a year of ownership. For the benefit of those considering buying one, I will explain why. The main reason was comfort. The seating position was very uncomfortable for me (I am 5'8" with long legs). The seat is not high enough to allow for chair or truck-like seating and it is not low enough for sedan seating. The driver's side seat adjustments help some, but not enough,and there are no adjustments in the passenger seat. Also, to be close enough to the steering whee for my arms to be comfortable, I had to scrunch up my legs. Extending my legs even a bit meant having to extend my arms straight out to reach the steering wheel. The seats themselves are tiny with no side support, so I felt like I was perched on the seat rather than seated, and around curves I had to brace myself to remain upright. My friends said sitting in the backseat is like sitting on a bench. Taking a long trip was a painful experience. In addition, the car had a wobble when it accelerated in first gear. Honda's response was that all CR-V's have the wobble to some extent, that it has to do with the torque, and that this is "normal." It did not feel normal to me. The car was difficult to park because the tire extends out further than the rear bumper so that you find yourself scrunching the car behind you with the tire before you tap it with your bumper, and there are blind spots. It handles more like a truck than a car. When you floor the pedal in an emergency situation, there is a delay before the car accelerates which I found dangerous. Also, the loud revving upon acceleration is annoying. I couldn't tell if and when the 4WD was operating because it supposedly only kicks in when necessary. The air-conditioning was really poor. It took me a month of heavy advertising in the San Francisco area to sell it, even though it was in excellent condition, and I only got 16,000. A dealer I talked to had a few used ones on the lot and said nobody wants them now because of the new RAV-4. I have owned Hondas for decades, but this was a big disappointment. One person's opinion.
That no one vehicle is right for everyone. As Victoria proves, it pays to do as much research and testing prior to purchasing any vehicle. Always know what you need and why you need it. Don't just buy something because it looks cute or your (insert family member here) told you it would be great for you.
Does what Victoria said make the CR-V a bad vehicle. No. Was it the right vehicle for her. No.
I own a '99 EX and a '95 Chevy S10. Two different vehicles to serve two different purposes. The 'V is the family hauler and serves that purpose well. A flat rear bench is a great base for car seats. Does its duty with no complaints. The S10 gets used for hauling stuff (fence post, mulch, debris, bricks,etc) and does that job with no complaints either.
Our next vehicle will most likely be a minivan (we want more kids), because that class will likely fit our needs best.
Always know what it is you are looking for in a vehicle before you even start looking for one. It will save you some complaining and money in the future.
The "primative" ride of the cherokee is called solid axle, say it with me now s-o-l-i-d a-x-l-e. The ride of the CRV is independant, which also make the CRV more likley to roll, and he Wrangler got an acceptable rating in a crash which makes it as safe as your CRV. The Jeeps has more capability than the CRV because the CRV has no capablilty. So what actually makes the CRV an SUV????Can't be the 4x4, it doesn't have a real transfer case or a locker or truck wheels or tires, Can't be the structure since it is off of a civic, Can't be the wagon part, because even if it did it would just be a station wagon. So Varmit why is it an SUV?
Also Varmit the answer to your perfect SUV question is, well actually I have several 1 Cherokee, and if you think that it has a rough ride you must have grown up in a bubble 2 Durango, you can get the durango in V-6 to get good mileage 3 Blazer 4 Grand Cherokee V-6 And you can't tell me that your CRV can off-road, because I had to pull an Escape out of the ditch yestarday, I was laughing the entire time. Apperantly they thought they would take a senic route to see the river and they got stuck on a small patch of sand under one tire.
Ladychaos- You seem to stuck thinking that I am just ignorant but think about what you are saying, The Yukon is an SUV becuase of it's rugged design and it's capabilities. The CRV has nothing that should make it an SUV and don't try breaking down the word SUV think of what an SUV is Yes I Said THINK!!!!!
Tough call. The Forester would be my pick with the additional differential protector. I'd prefer the 4Runner or Pathfinder but since you also mentioned fuel economy, well, you know. I'd also look at the Outback for more room.
Let's look at it another way. Where is the Utility in a Wrangler? I owned one. No room for luggage, so you can't pick up people at the airport. Can't load anything longer than 3 feet. Try having your 60 year old mother get in the back seat. It is Sporty and it is a Vehicle, but I don't see a whole lot of Utility. So what makes it an SUV? By the way, it is also a hunk of junk. My family has owned 4 Jeep products, 3 GC's and a Wrangler. All of them were horrible in terms of shop time and dependibility. Mine left me standed on several occasions.
besides being good examples of horrible reliability, a cherokee is one of the smallest suvs out there (thank god its going away) in terms of interior room. No adult over 5 feet tall can sit back there comfortably. the cherokee has 2 things going for it. good off road ability and a strong motor. As for jeeps other products, the Grand Cherokee (with its INLINE 6), wrangler are also great examples of shoddy reliability. the one thing a jeep never has is the reliability of a honda. The toledo jeep plant just recently decided to get into late 20th century in terms of manufacturing processes. If youre gonna compare the jeep to anything its really like the xterra not the CRV. the CRV is a car based SUV not a truck based. some people seem to forget this.
While I don't disagree with your assessment of the poor quality of JEEPs, I certainly think most (if not all) GI's would attest to the utilitarian nature of the JEEP vehicle. These things carried MG's, wounded, dead, troops, supplies, etc. They towed nameless cargo of all sorts. They can climb up the side of a mountain. You can do pretty much anything with them.
I don't think a CRV (what does that stand for anyhow?) can do all that a JEEP does.
I am comparing needs, and price. The Wrangler and CRV can each meet some of my needs and fall within the same price range.
The first thing I look at is what I can afford. Then I look at what falls into this range, and which best meets my needs.
I wish Honda would read this board: HONDA, PLEASE MAKE A TRUCK. THEN MAKE AN SUV!!!
If I could get a Wrangler like vehicle (rugged, topless, durable, powerful) with the quality of a Honda, at a price of around, say, $19,000; I'd buy it in a split second!
Beatfarmer is absolutely right. I did not assess my priorities before I bought the car and ended up putting Honda quality, cuteness, and storage space ahead of things that actually mean more to me, like comfort and easy urban handling. I know I should have spent more time test-driving too. And Tom, I ended up buying a 1985 Mercedes, cherry condition. It's comfortable, gets more admiration than the CR-V did, and it is paid for! (though I know there will be repairs, and expensive ones too...)
Good point about the past military use, but I mean from a current standpoint as an everyday vehicle. Climbing up a mountain falls more under Sport than Utility, IMHO. The Jeep is a lot of fun when it is running. If you could keep one as a 3rd vehicle, I think it would be great. Granted the Cherokee is a different animal. I owned a Wrangler. But, I totally agree with your last statement. If you could get a rag top Honda with the attributes you mentioned I would be all over it as well. Maybe 4 doors as well now that I have a 15 month old.
First off Andy, a live or independent axle have little bearing on a vehicle's tendancy towards rolling. Other factors such as center of gravity, wheelbase, spring rates and overall mass do more to determine when and if a vehicle will roll. Secondly, what about the 2wd versions of the vehicles you mentioned? Are they still SUVs even though they no longer have the same capabilities of their 4wd brethren?
I'm just having a little fun here.
Squatch, my guess is you won't see a Honda truck because Honda is a smaller, more conservative company than other Japanese manufacturers. They have a history of moving carefully into a market segment, but doing so with a market leading vehicle. Look at the Odyssey for example. A truck would involve a whole new platform, manufacturing space, etc. So if you are looking for a truck with Honda-like quality, check out Toyota. I even read that they are going to make an Fj40 type LC (think Wrangler) again for the US.
I end with another Question for Andy: Why is it that live axles are preferred for hard core off-roading?
Having drove multiple Cherokees (POS) at work (government), I can tell you one thing. I wouldn't in a million years buy one.
While a CRV would be no better, the Cherokee is far from being a tough 4x4. The jeeps are the biggest "rattle traps", and most poorly manufactured vehicles I have ever driven. It's not a good sign when the new guy always gets assigned the jeep.
I agree that SUV is just a marketing ploy. I am intersted in the CR-V because of its capabilities, not its liabilities. It certainly has a different set of capabilities than a Jeep product. I am waiting for the 2002 CR-V because I own a Honda and an Acura and love them both. I want Honda reliability and efficiency. I also have a growing family and need a vehicle that can carry babies and life's detritus in a safe manner. I have an Accord and love it, but often the trunk is too small for all the baby gear and luggage on trips to see the grandparents. So we want something that has similar passenger carrying capacity but more flexible storage spaces. I know someone will say get a van. My wife and I simply don't like the way they look. What we need is a station wagon, but Honda doesn't offer one. So it is probably going to be a CR-V to replace my Acura. I looked into buying a MDX and had one ordered for December 2000 delivery, but I backed out once I saw what Acura was gouging customers over MSRP. Plus it doesn't look much better than an Oddessy IMO. Noting vstafford's post earlier, I will be sure to test drive a 2002 CR-V before buying.
An SUV is nothing more than wagon anyway. Station wagons originated from the need to take people and their luggage (picture big steamer trunks) from train stations to their homes/hotels. Traditional taxis didn't offer the luggage space necessary to carry both passengers and cargo, so the station wagon was born. The originals were working vehicles, and most likely custom coaches. The station wagon gained popularity with families in the '50s and '60s for because of their combination of cargo and passenger carrying abilities. Vans and panel trucks were seen as working vehicles and as such, were meant to carry goods and not passengers. Big wagons started loosing popularity in the '70s due to higher fuel cost. Smaller import wagons were still selling but lacked the capacity of the big wagons. Enter the minivan to the market in the '80 (not a new concept BTW. My parents tooled my seven siblings and myself around in a VW Bus back in the late '60s). The market for traditional stawags was now buying minivans. Of course, minivans started to carry the stigma of "GHASP" a family vehicle, and no self respecting person with fewer than three kids would be caught dead driving one, so sales started to get soft. Thats when the marketing types at the major auto manufactures said "What if we take one of them (insert truck model name here), gussie it up inside, add 10k to the price and call it a modern family wagon." "Nobody buys wagons anymore,"said marking guy 2 "we need a better name." And the SUV was born.
A real sport wagon would be the WRX from subaru. 227hp real fulltime awd (none of this on-demand juck) and five speed. The audi S$ avant caould also be considered a sport wagon but its way more $$$. Darn I cant wait to get a WRX when my F150 is paid off. Oh well I'll just have to be patient but I dont have to like it
"recognize it yourself first"? How many CR-V owner claim they have a TRUE off-road truck? Instead, I've seen people here saying they just think their CR-V as station wagon, a car and etc. Basically, they know what they want, and they use the CR-V as it was designed for.
I don't call trucks SUVs just because the are enclosed and have seating for 5+. Any full size crew cab pickup with a cap and be that. I don't call cars SUVs simply because they have 4wd.
If you want to say that vehicles with 4wd (4hi and 4lo), full length ladder frame, live axles, and seating for at least five, and decent cargo capacity are the only ones that can rightfully be called SUV then by all means do so.
But that definition would exclude all DC products (including jeep unit body on C and GC, no cargo space in the TJ), the 2wd versions, GM products, etc.
Lets say you define SUV to mean only "Truck based" vehicles, i.e. a full length ladder frame. Now the list grows, but you still leave out the Cherokee and GC, both of which are widely accepted to be SUVs.
Narrow definitions don't work. In your effort to clear up terminology, you have only proven how murky the term SUV is.
If you, or anybody else dosen't want to call the CR-V an SUV, that's cool. Big deal. It still doens't help you find a vehicle you want.
Funny, but most of the "real SUVs" on the lists above were originally called "four by fours".
If anyone here doesn't want to call the CR-V an SUV for fear of somehow detracting from the manly man image of their precious trucks, then don't. Call it a wagon. Call it a car. Call it a hybrid.
Andy - I know exactly what a solid axle is. It's that thing that makes the Cherokee fishtail when passing over bumps on the highway. It's that thing that adds extra resistance to the drivetrain. It's also the same thing that survives vicious impacts with rocks, then falls off the bottom of the truck when parked at the gas pump.
As for jeeps in the military; all I have to say is, ask a mail man how he feels about jeeps...
Squatch - I have to agree with Guxu. There have been a few times when you've posted one point of view then claimed some sort of victory after reversing your position. Oh, and when Honda makes that truck you've been asking for... come back and let us know.
.....what it's called ? I've often referred to my CR-V as a 'Civic-on-steroids'. I'm a realist. I've taken it offroading with great success, but still get to enjoy it's rattle-free, sportiness, utility, comfortable ride, great MPG and especially the reliability. I know I'll get slammed on this one - but what else could a vehicle owner ask for ?
I think folks like Andy, Squatch and other CR-V bashers should find some positivity in their lives and express that on the appropriate 4x4, solid axle packing, ladder-framed vehicle forums and get this one back to discussing 'Honda CR-V' as the title states.
If you guys can't live with that then at least start a forum more appropriately named 'The SUV World against the CR-V', and duke it out there.
I have an interesting question for all of you CR-V owners. On my 2001 I noticed if you put the drivers side seat as far back as it will go and look on the floor, right under the middle of the front seat, straight down from the edge of the seat there is a hole cut in the carpet and a hole drilled into the metal hump that holds the seat brackets. What in the world is this for? Or am I missing something that should be bolted down to that? Thanks for the help......bogey
I have a 2001 Honda CR-V SE. I was recently trying to shift from D to 2, and also from P to 2; despite of the fact that I had pulled the shift lever to my side, still couldn't shift it to 2. Didn't want to force the shift lever. However I was able to manage to do it once during my half a dozen tries. Has anyone faced a similar situation? Or should I go to my Honda Dealer and try asking him the reason for this?
Hi, I'm considering the purchase of a new CR-V EX. I was interest in what a good price might be for this model. I have seen the Edmunds TMV, But I think I can do better. Just interested in what others might have purchased one for. Thanks
That's roughly 1% over invoice -- not a bad price. Assuming that you were going to finance the vehicle, the CR-V has never been cheaper if you factor in the recent 3.9% APR promotion. A sure way of getting a good deal is to wait a few months. The expected arrival of a redesigned '02 CR-V should make getting an even sweeter deal on an '01 easier.
rbogey: I have no idea what the "mystery hole" is for. At first I thought that might have been for the optional CD player, but there's another slit in the carpet to route the DIN cable.
Comments
1.Jeep Wrangler
2.Jeep Cherokee
3.Jeep Grand Cherokee
(because they are the only midsizes with SOLID AXLES)
4.Hummer H1 (not H2)
5.Dodge Ramcharge
6.Dodge Durango
7.Suburbans and Yukon Z71s
I have missed many old SUVs but there is to many to actually name.
Also I encourage you CRVers to buy a 4wheeler, off-road, Four Wheeler, and JP magazine to see some real sport UTILITY VEHICLES.
If I wanted to head off-road for the sport of it, I'd buy a Wrangler or a modified Samurai as a third vehicle. However, I'd also buy a trailer to tow it to the trailhead and never, never, never let its tires touch pavement.
1. Drive to work everyday.
2. Get decent gas mileage.
3. Carry four people and enough stuff for a weekend of camping.
4. Be able to tackle unimproved roads (mud, washouts, ruts, high crowns,...) and the occasional trip onto the path not taken before.
5. Have decent traction for snowy weather.
6. Be safe enough for the family.
7. Not spend half it's life in the garage getting fixed.
Any suggestions?
Just wanted to add my two cents...I would not classify the CRVs hokey system as all wheel drive..If you want to see all wheel drive, check out subaru..I am qualified to say this because I had a CRV and have a subaru (2nd one) and there is no comparison between the two systems!
Tom
CRV hits: Interior Room, Ride, Holds Value
CRV Minuses: Engine, Road Noise, hokey 4wd
Subaru Hits: Engine, Lack of Road Noise, Real all wheel drive system
Subaru Minuses: Interior room, Doesnt hold value as well as CRV
I say test drive both...The 2001 Foresters have special financing now as does the CRV..A new CRV is due later this year..A new Forester next year..
Tom
As for comparisons between Soob's AWD and Honda's RT4WD, we'd have to install each system in the other company's cars to see which was better. There are too many differences in things like wheelbase, weight, suspension, and tires to make a proper comparisons of just the AWD. You'd also have to determine what "better" means since one is probably better at distributing power and the other is more efficient and reliable.
Gina - My recomendation would be the Soob Forester. It isn't a whole lot faster than the CR-V, but it's powerband is lower in the RPMs. Therefore, it has much more push off the line. It'll feel faster. Gas mileage averages about the same for both.
Skip the Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute. Both have very powerful engines, but gas mileage has been much lower than advertised.
I think when different publications do AWD comparison tests, they put the vehicles through a variety of typically handling tests, and possibly a split-mu test. This is how Popular Science has done it, and how they have compared the different systems. I remember one test a few years ago, where the Range Rover's traction controlled permanent 4WD system was ranked the most effective and consequently the best, since it worked at all times, and the only system that allowed the vehicle to climb up the split-mu grade with no problems.
Subaru's system might arguably be better since it is smarter, and it is pro-active rather than reactive like the CR-V's system. But then, that's another discussion for the Subaru Forester vs. Honda CR-V topic :-).
Good luck,
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Honda is always secretive about their new models. As CandianCL points out, it is difficult to sell the old models when a new and improved one is right around the corner. As a company, Honda has been one of the most sucessful at hiding their new designs from spy photographers and those who would leak information. We should be getting more news soon, but I wouldn't expect reliable information until this Summer.
Taurus wagon
Chrysler minivan or Dodge full size van
Ford econoline
used Civic wagon
CRV!!
used MPV
etc (too numerous to list)
Just depends HOW MUCH you want to do any one thing more than the other.
Tom
Does what Victoria said make the CR-V a bad vehicle. No. Was it the right vehicle for her. No.
I own a '99 EX and a '95 Chevy S10. Two different vehicles to serve two different purposes. The 'V is the family hauler and serves that purpose well. A flat rear bench is a great base for car seats. Does its duty with no complaints. The S10 gets used for hauling stuff (fence post, mulch, debris, bricks,etc) and does that job with no complaints either.
Our next vehicle will most likely be a minivan (we want more kids), because that class will likely fit our needs best.
Always know what it is you are looking for in a vehicle before you even start looking for one. It will save you some complaining and money in the future.
1 Cherokee, and if you think that it has a rough ride you must have grown up in a bubble
2 Durango, you can get the durango in V-6 to get good mileage
3 Blazer
4 Grand Cherokee V-6
And you can't tell me that your CRV can off-road, because I had to pull an Escape out of the ditch yestarday, I was laughing the entire time. Apperantly they thought they would take a senic route to see the river and they got stuck on a small patch of sand under one tire.
You seem to stuck thinking that I am just ignorant but think about what you are saying, The Yukon is an SUV becuase of it's rugged design and it's capabilities. The CRV has nothing that should make it an SUV and don't try breaking down the word SUV think of what an SUV is Yes I Said THINK!!!!!
Also, if you are talking about rollovers when you say the CR-V rolls more than a Jeep, check out this page: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/hot/rollover/fullWebd.html
While you are at it, compare the Jeep's and the CR-V in crash tests and tell me what you think:
http://www.edmunds.com/edweb/crashtst.html
So, it is not for off road? I don't think it would qualify as a sports car either.
Where does the "S" fit into this equation?
Kyle
I don't think a CRV (what does that stand for anyhow?) can do all that a JEEP does.
Maybe it is Commuter Recliningseats Vehicle?
The first thing I look at is what I can afford. Then I look at what falls into this range, and which best meets my needs.
I wish Honda would read this board: HONDA, PLEASE MAKE A TRUCK. THEN MAKE AN SUV!!!
If I could get a Wrangler like vehicle (rugged, topless, durable, powerful) with the quality of a Honda, at a price of around, say, $19,000; I'd buy it in a split second!
Good point about the past military use, but I mean from a current standpoint as an everyday vehicle. Climbing up a mountain falls more under Sport than Utility, IMHO. The Jeep is a lot of fun when it is running. If you could keep one as a 3rd vehicle, I think it would be great. Granted the Cherokee is a different animal. I owned a Wrangler. But, I totally agree with your last statement. If you could get a rag top Honda with the attributes you mentioned I would be all over it as well. Maybe 4 doors as well now that I have a 15 month old.
Secondly, what about the 2wd versions of the vehicles you mentioned? Are they still SUVs even though they no longer have the same capabilities of their 4wd brethren?
I'm just having a little fun here.
Squatch, my guess is you won't see a Honda truck because Honda is a smaller, more conservative company than other Japanese manufacturers. They have a history of moving carefully into a market segment, but doing so with a market leading vehicle. Look at the Odyssey for example. A truck would involve a whole new platform, manufacturing space, etc.
So if you are looking for a truck with Honda-like quality, check out Toyota. I even read that they are going to make an Fj40 type LC (think Wrangler) again for the US.
I end with another Question for Andy: Why is it that live axles are preferred for hard core off-roading?
link
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
While a CRV would be no better, the Cherokee is far from being a tough 4x4. The jeeps are the biggest "rattle traps", and most poorly manufactured vehicles I have ever driven. It's not a good sign when the new guy always gets assigned the jeep.
;-)
HAPPY FRIDAY!!!
You still are falling for the hype.
I am trying to clear up the terminology (along with many others' help), but you still refuse to see through it.
The only way to clear this up is to recognize it yourself first.
That is all.
What's the problem here?
only marketing ploy.
bu bye.
SUV is just a marketing term
Trucks are trucks, cars are cars, wagons are wagons.
An SUV can and be a little or a lot of any of them.
If you'd like to see Jeep's own take on the lineage of the current models, look here http://www.jeepunpaved.com/woj/heritage/index.html
I don't call trucks SUVs just because the are enclosed and have seating for 5+. Any full size crew cab pickup with a cap and be that. I don't call cars SUVs simply because they have 4wd.
If you want to say that vehicles with 4wd (4hi and 4lo), full length ladder frame, live axles, and seating for at least five, and decent cargo capacity are the only ones that can rightfully be called SUV then by all means do so.
But that definition would exclude all DC products (including jeep unit body on C and GC, no cargo space in the TJ), the 2wd versions, GM products, etc.
Lets say you define SUV to mean only "Truck based" vehicles, i.e. a full length ladder frame. Now the list grows, but you still leave out the Cherokee and GC, both of which are widely accepted to be SUVs.
Narrow definitions don't work. In your effort to clear up terminology, you have only proven how murky the term SUV is.
If you, or anybody else dosen't want to call the CR-V an SUV, that's cool. Big deal. It still doens't help you find a vehicle you want.
and I'm spent
If anyone here doesn't want to call the CR-V an SUV for fear of somehow detracting from the manly man image of their precious trucks, then don't. Call it a wagon. Call it a car. Call it a hybrid.
Andy - I know exactly what a solid axle is. It's that thing that makes the Cherokee fishtail when passing over bumps on the highway. It's that thing that adds extra resistance to the drivetrain. It's also the same thing that survives vicious impacts with rocks, then falls off the bottom of the truck when parked at the gas pump.
As for jeeps in the military; all I have to say is, ask a mail man how he feels about jeeps...
Squatch - I have to agree with Guxu. There have been a few times when you've posted one point of view then claimed some sort of victory after reversing your position. Oh, and when Honda makes that truck you've been asking for... come back and let us know.
I think folks like Andy, Squatch and other CR-V bashers should find some positivity in their lives and express that on the appropriate 4x4, solid axle packing, ladder-framed vehicle forums and get this one back to discussing 'Honda CR-V' as the title states.
If you guys can't live with that then at least start a forum more appropriately named 'The SUV World against the CR-V', and duke it out there.
JM2C
I have a 2001 Honda CR-V SE. I was recently trying to shift from D to 2, and also from P to 2; despite of the fact that I had pulled the shift lever to my side, still couldn't shift it to 2. Didn't want to force the shift lever. However I was able to manage to do it once during my half a dozen tries. Has anyone faced a similar situation? Or should I go to my Honda Dealer and try asking him the reason for this?
Regards,
rbogey: I have no idea what the "mystery hole" is for. At first I thought that might have been for the optional CD player, but there's another slit in the carpet to route the DIN cable.