2001 - 2006 Honda CR-Vs

stevedebi · February 2004

Where did you find your information on the CR-V shifts not being computer controlled, except for a 1st gear lockout? I'd like to check out the details...

ateixeira · February 2004

I'm talking about the manual transmission, not the automatic, which I'm sure is computer-controlled.

The manual is controlled by the driver, whatever gear he/she selects. If you down shift to 2nd instead of 4th, I don't think it's going to stop you (please correct me if I'm wrong, folks).

1st gear does has a mechanism to block down shifts to prevent over-revving, but I think that's the only one that does.

-juice

kyfdx · February 2004

I don't think any manual transmission car will keep you from making a downshift like that. I've heard plenty of stories from people blowing up Porsches and BMWs even. If something like that was available, those cars would get it first, I would think. To simplify it to its most basic, a manual transmission is purely a mechanical device, while an automatic is usually electronically controlled.

regards,
kyfdx
(still under 3500 RPM)

ateixeira · February 2004

Most 5 speeds have well defined gates, so this is basically driver error.

Some 6 speeds have very close gates, though. I'm sure missed shifts are more common.

Still, redline in 2nd is probably around 60mph or so, I think just above, so you'd have to be going pretty fast to do any harm.

-juice

2000taurussel · February 2004

I have a 2002 CRV with 72k miles. I consistantly get 26 mpg in the winter and 28 mpg in the summer. I do freeway and mountain driving, 4 days/week.

I have my oil changed every 5k miles. I just put new tires.. upgrading to 16". Of all the vehicles I have owned... this is the best trouble free vehicle.

I bought my wife a 2004 Pilot on 12/24.. and is also a good choice. I have not driven it much, but plan to go to Phoenix next week.

kyfdx · February 2004

Did you go aftermarket, or use another Honda wheel? Also, what brand tire and what size did you go with? Are your wheels 16 X 7, or 16 X 6.5?

regards,
kyfdx

inkie · February 2004

I have an '02 EX with 21k on the odeometer. I live in Jersey so its about 70% stop and go and 30% open road. It depends on the gas I use to get the maximum milage but I run between 24.6 and 26.2 miles per gallon since I got the CRV. I never go above 4570 on the tach. so maybe all the posters with low mpg are redlining it without realizing it. I never got 28 or 30 but from what I read it can be done on the open road. It will be very interesting to see your results. I am wondering what percentage increase you will get.

As an afterthought, I checked the air cleaner last week and it was very dirty especially where it was exposed to the air inlet. I replaced the air filter and immediately noticed a smoother idle it was okay before but now its smoooooth. I will also keep track of my milage to see if the new filter helps.

stever · February 2004

Lowest True Cost to Own Vehicles for 2004:

Honda CR-V

Steve, Host

kizhe · February 2004

" It depends on the gas I use to get the maximum mileage... ". Can you, please, give more info on that. I noticed too that some gas brands gives me more smooth response (like SUNOCO ?).
Recently I changed my air filter too( @ 16K for the first time). Yes, it was dirty where it was exposed to the air inlet. I replaced the air filter but I did NOT notice a smoother idle or ride.

inkie · February 2004

I found Amoco {which is now BP},Sunoco and Chevron gives me the best milage. I would like to use Chevron because of the Thecron but none can be found in my area. Exxon and Hess gives me less mpg.

I used a purolater air cleaner as a replacement. What did you use? I noticed the OEM from Honda was built like a brick outhouse and had the spray gunk like K&N Filters. I did not price the honda air cleaner but I bet its expensive and I am going with the Purolator because I will change every 10K. Das Vedania .

bluemalibu2000 · February 2004

After looking for the past two years, I just purchased a new silver CR-V LX today and drove her home. I didn't think I would like the tray, but now I do. The only thing that will take some getting used to is the gearshift location. If it were up to me it would be on the floor, but mostly because I'm used to my 5 speed Accord. A good sign on the gas mileage, which was a concern of mine from reading where some are only getting around 20mpg. I drove it 55 miles after buying it with a full tank of gas. Topped the tank off with 1.65 gallons tonight - that figures to 33mpg (mostly highway). Considering the car is brand new, that's not bad.

autosaurus · February 2004

33 mpg?.. wow..I have 3400 miles on my CRV exauto and almost all highway..my last fill up as about 23..thats with keeping the speed no higher than 70.
must be something wrong with mine for sure!

bluemalibu2000 · February 2004

It did figure out to almost 33 mpg, but based only on around 50 miles driven. It's possible the dealer had pumped a little more in the tank than I did. Even a half gallon could really throw off the calculation. I'll have a better idea the next time I fuel up. I'm really thinking it will come down from the 33, especially for around town driving.

kizhe · March 2004

I used Honda air filter ($19).
Did not see Purolator - got no chance to compare.
And how could I compare anyway? We need, like, Consumer Report for that.
I believe 15K is a good time to change it
(manual gives us 30K ). What do you think?

aggie1995 · March 2004

I have 35000 on my 2002 CR-V and was considering getting a Honda-care warranty before the standard one runs out, since we've had so many recalls on this car.

How many miles have the rest of you put on your CR-Vs?

varmint · March 2004

Aggie - There is no direct correlation between recalls and the reliability of a vehicle. So if that is your only concern, I wouldn't be anxious about it.

Also, since recalls are handled without a warranty, I wouldn't recommend getting the extended for those issues alone.

kyfdx · March 2004

It looks like you are under the gun. You have to buy the warranty now or never. After 36K, you won't qualify for it.

It is a hard decision. If you plan on keeping it for 100K, then it seems like a pretty decent value at $900-$1000. I have 26K on mine now, and due to the purchase of my wife's new car, I'm fairly certain I'll have mine until I die. I'm still mulling it over, but I think I'm going to buy the warranty before mine expires.

Does this help? I didn't think so.

regards,
kyfdx

ateixeira · March 2004

It would have been a better value to buy it right away. Why?

Roadside assistance. If you get a 7 year extended warranty, you also get roadside assistance for the full 7 years. My dad renewed his, that alone costs $71 per year.

So if you had bought it up front that alone adds 7 * $71 = $497 value all by itself. Now if you get it you're only getting the 4 remaining years or $284 value. So it's harder to justify, but still might be worth it.

-juice

andrelaplume · March 2004

Is it not true that AAA covers far more than Roadside assisitance. I thought I looked into this once and we opted to keep our AAA+ ($50 a year or so) even though our vehicle had Roadside Assistance. AAA covers you in any car and I think offers jump starts, tire fixes etc etc. Roadside Assistance does not offer as much right. Also I have always heard you will wait perhaps 3 times as long for Roadside Assistance as you will with AAA....True or False?. I believe the warranty price is a hundred bucks or more cheaper if purchased up front than at the end of 3 years. Beware though...If Honda's Warranty works like Toyotas it likely offeres a pro-rated refund. (In case you buy the warranty with the car and it turns out you just can't stand the car or triplets come along and you need something bigger etc!) I know Toyotas pro-rating starts the minute the warranty is purchased.....EVEN THOUGH the cars is fully warranted until the end of the 3rd year or 36K. If this is the case with Honda and you are unsure if you will keeping your Honda fo an extended period of time then you may want to hold off on the warranty pruchase until the last minute. There will always be a delaer willing to take your cash at that time...don't forget to shop the internet for the best price too!

stevedebi · March 2004

Once the car is over 24K (and I think a certain number of months), the warranty is a bit more expensive, about $100, if I remember correctly.

aggie1995 · March 2004

The recalls do not bother me since they will be covered at no charge. I am worried about the apparent lack of QC that led to these recalls.

What about issues that may end up manifesting themselves as repairs that I have to pay for.

Truth be told, I probably won't get the warranty. I never have on previous vehicles. And I bought a Honda for the very reason that I could look forward to a long reliable service with it.

Thanks for the input.

justaname · March 2004

I have a 2002 that just got its 20,000 mile check-up and all that goes with it--oil, tire rotation, etc. Everything checked out all right except ever since I got it back from the shop there is a definite and consistent drop in MPG. I used to get a steady 250 miles between fill up and fuel indicator light but now I'm getting a steady 225 miles. Driving habits have not changed and even when I take an occasional extended highway trip where I would get a measurable difference--about 40-50 miles per tank--I'm not seeing any kind of remarkable difference. Now it's possible that during the 20,000 mile diagnostic something occurred that makes the indicator light up earlier, but this seems unlikely--the needle is at the same place it always was when the light comes on. It also seems highly unlikely that a tire rotation would affect such a difference. Has anyone had a similar experience? Any suggestions? Thanks. Chris

inkie · March 2004

I doubt they made any adjutments, so the only thing I can think of is:That the tire rotation could have affected the milage if they reduced your air pressure, check it out!

stevedebi · March 2004

Or they could have updated the programming in your engine control computer.

kyfdx · March 2004

I agree with inkie.. Most likely a change in tire pressure.. If you are now running 26 PSI vs. 30-32 PSI before, it would make a significant difference.

kyfdx · March 2004

Well.. My looonnnnggg week of driving with a light foot is over. For specifics on my experiment, please refer to MSG #12106.

I am happy (?) to report that my mileage increased to 25.1 MPG from 22.4 MPG the tank before. I believe this is solely due to the change in driving habits, as the miles and area driven and the weather were virtually the same as the week before. That is a 12% increase in MPG.

As noted before, I did stay under 65MPH for the entire tankful, with most of that under 60MPH. Also, I was able to stay under 3500 RPM, except for just two occasions the entire week, with almost all driving done under 3K RPM.

I know this isn't scientific, but I thought that was a pretty major increase, from just changing my own driving habits. I also run my tires at factory recommended 26 PSI, so I'm sure I could pickup a couple more MPG from going up to 32 PSI. That makes 27 MPG seem very achievable.

Just a personal observation.. From watching the gas gauge, it seems you can really get the MPG up at a steady 55MPH. If you are running errands around town, making frequent stops, etc, you really kill the mileage no matter how easy you are driving.

The only drawback to this, is now I feel guilty driving 75 MPH on the way to work. Wasting our natural resources, not to mention my financial resources. I'll try to get over it, though.. Next time I want to do this experiment, I'll trade cars with my wife for the week. She drives like Grandma, anyway.

regards,
kyfdx

ateixeira · March 2004

I'm not surprised. Wind resistance increases with the square of speed (i.e. it's not linear). SUVs have all the aerodynamics of a parachute.

Put those two together and mileage increases noticeably when you slow down a little on the highway.

-juice

varmint · March 2004

Thanks for the report! I've often noted better mpg numbers when I'm driving up in Vermont and New Hampshire. For quite a while they had several major highways that were still 55 mph zones. Driving here in MA (where limits are posted at 65, but everyone does 70+) my mileage is lower.

inkie · March 2004

Thank you for a very sucessfull experiment.
A 12% increase in mpg at your controlled tire pressure of 26psi is quite good. And as you report, it indicates to me also, that the milage per gallon some people report is not bogus. Once again thanx and I know how you must have felt to try not to break the egg on the pedal

kyfdx · March 2004

What I really noticed was how quickly the gas gauge dropped doing the around town errands. Taking my son to basketball practice, running to the grocery, etc... I feel I was really pushing up my average with the 36 miles of mostly open freeway going to and from work each day. I could see how someone that doesn't commute, or has a short 5 mile urban trip to work, and really never gets the highway mileage in, could actually average 18-20 MPG. It wouldn't necessarily mean you have a problem with the vehicle.

I really felt guilty when I hit 75 MPH this morning... Maybe the wife will let me drive her car this week...HMMMMM

regards,
kyfdx

stevedebi · March 2004

Well, you've inspired me to try it myself. I'm not going to limit my freeway speeds (in LA? you've got to be kidding!); I'm going to attempt to use lower RPMs around town by watching the tachometer while accelerating and cruising. I've already noticed that if I take it easy, the tach will read 1500 RPM at 40 MPH, while if I'm not thinking about it and accelerating with the crowd, it reads about 1800. Also, if I'm careful, the vehicle won't go above 3000 RPM while acclerating, but if I don't keep an eye on it, it will get into that "sweet spot" of acceleration at about 3100 and up.

My theory is that I am attempting to keep the VTEC from engaging by keeping lower RPMs. I'll start recording at my next fill up.

I'm not dissatisfied with my current 21 MPG in town, but it is the challenge of it all that inspires me. How high can we go?

varmint · March 2004

Keep in mind, I have a '99 model with a manual transmission.

Highest mpg: 31.2
Max range: 401 miles

stevedebi · March 2004

Which gets WORSE gas mileage than the automatic. Is that tank smaller on the Gen1? I have gone over 400 miles on a tank at highway speeds.

lsattle · March 2004

I've seen a lot of gas mileage discussions on this board. I live in Ohio and have a 99 automatic since it was new. I do about 12,000 miles a year. For my normal driving which included 20 miles of freeway daily at 60 - 65 mph, I get 26 - 27 mpg during the best gas mileage parts of the year (warm, not air conditioning weather). This goes all the way down to 20 - 21 during January and stays in the 24 -25 range in the hot hot summer (a/c). So you guys getting 20 in February will see closer to 25 in May. Higher speeds definately have a big impact. I've seen 27. I think if you drove this car in May on a flat road at 50 you would maybe get 29.

theracoon · March 2004

My best MPG is about the same as Varmint - a little over 31 MPG highway at 55-60 MPH (driving from Ohio through Buffalo, NY enroute to Rochester, NY). I too have a '99 5 speed, although mine's the faster Milano Red version. ;D

And my averge MPG numbers match lsattle (although my highway numbers are slightly better), which is not surprizing since I live in Indiana and have similar weather cycles.

varmint · March 2004

Stevedebi - The G1 CR-V had even EPA ratings for both the auto and stick, yet most stick drivers averaged better than auto drivers in the real world.

The EPA testing methodology has the driver shifting at a specific speed, rather than rpm. During their testing sticks that are geared low, may be revved higher than a driver would in the real world. Most drivers shift at a specific rpm (usually by the sound of the engine).

So... it looks like there is good reason to suspect that the EPA under-rated the 5 speed CR-V. Based on their own internal testing, Honda's original estimates for the G2 had both the 5 speed and auto getting the same mpg.

With that in mind, I've been keeping an eye on threads related to MPG (in several boards). It takes a while to see consistencies because 5 speeds are not common. So far, the impression I'm getting is that the 5 speeds match the automatics, but unlike the G1 models they do not exceed them.

varmint · March 2004

Pardon us folks, but this is an age old debate between the Racoon and I...

We both purchased our CR-Vs in April of 1999, so we've both had them the same length of time.

I've driven about 91,000 miles over that period. You've driven less than me.

Speed is calculated by by using distance travelled over time. Since I've gone farther over the same amount of time, I must be going faster!

There you have it. Scientific proof that Silver CR-Vs are faster.

ateixeira · March 2004

The gen2 5 speed gets very short gearing, the final drive is something like 4.77:1. The auto is taller and revs less on the highway.

That might offset any losses from the torque converter.

-juice

varmint · March 2004

Juice - The same was true of the G1 models.

ateixeira · March 2004

I don't think the final drive was quite that short, though. I think it was around 4.4:1, please correct me if I'm wrong or if you have the exact figures.

Some V6 competitors have 2.9:1 gearing, it's how some V6s can manage 26mpg on the highway.

-juice

varmint · March 2004

Gen1
Automatic: 4.36
Manual: 4.562

Gen2
Automatic: 4.438
Manual: 4.765

theracoon · March 2004

I've driven about 91,000 miles over that period. You've driven less than me.

True. I've just shy of 62,000 miles on my CR-V.

Speed is calculated by by using distance travelled over time. Since I've gone farther over the same amount of time, I must be going faster!

At least you got the formula correct. But let's talk about the numbers...

There you have it. Scientific proof that Silver CR-Vs are faster.

I really can only add this...

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein
Torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything. ~Gregg Easterbrook

kyfdx · March 2004

My '98 may not have been as fast as your '99s, but I did put 59K on it in 3.5 years..

Unfortunately, mine also stopped very quickly.. with some outside help..
Hence, the reason I am now driving an '02.

regards,
kyfdx

ateixeira · March 2004

So the gearing is a little shorter, but not as much as I thought. There's also more displacement, so I'd expect the Gen I to be more fuel efficient on the road.

-juice

kizhe · March 2004

I see everybody wants MORE "powerful engine" and MORE "economical" at the same time. :-).
When price of gas will reach 5 bucks per gallon
I bet all of us would like to have a smaller car with LESS powerful engine.

ateixeira · March 2004

It's hard, but possible. Toyota's 3.3l is both more powerful and more fuel efficient than the 3.0l it replaced.

-juice

stevedebi · March 2004

My father has a Lincoln Town Car with a V8 that gets 27 MPG on the road, about 20 in town.

Sometimes a larger engine allows the computer to use higher torque in the lower RPM bands, resulting in higher MPG than a smaller engine in the same application.

varmint · March 2004

LOL Love those quotes (but I'm still faster).

Kizhe - Ditto. I need enough power to get the job done. I do not need to race from stop light to stop light at 60 mph, or be able to pass Bimmers on winding roads. The quest for ever-increasing power is one of my pet peeves. Especially when it cuts into something useful like fuel economy.

That said, I like the way some companies are doing things. A bump in power plus a bump in fuel economy is a win-win situation.

The 3.3L that Juice mentioned above is a great example. It gets terrific mpg and moves vehicles like the RX330 with plenty of oomph. On top of that, they are incorporating their hybrid system.

Honda is adding IMA to the V6 Accord later this year. They are also adding VCM (the engine shuts down 3 cylinders when cruising) to the same engine. More power and better fuel economy. Even without these advanced systems, each of Honda's most recent models has received boosts in both power and fuel economy over the model it replaces.

ateixeira · March 2004

Now you're talking. RX has done wonders for Lexus, the 400H will only expand their lead.

I'd love to see more, perhaps an MDX-H?

-juice

tomk17 · March 2004

I'll throw this question over on this board as well since I've seen a few related comments here in the past:

How many folks out there have opted for the re-usable K&N air filter for the CRV? This re-usable filter drops in the original housing and seems cost effective since even through mail order, the stock Honda air filter is $19. The 100,000 K&N filter (with cleaning)is only about $45. By the way, how do you clean those things anyway? Looks like a cleaning kit is needed?

2001 - 2006 Honda CR-Vs

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles