Not necessarily, per my post above a 2.5l Forester with permanent AWD now gets 23/30 while a smaller engined CR-V also with a manual tranny gets 21/25. YMMV.
In about a week I will take delivery of my new 2004 CR-V EX and already know from the VIN that this one was made in England (VIN SHSRD78664U******) I was at another dealer in my state two weeks ago and they had EX's that were all made in Japan. Any "better" quality with the Japan vs. England ?? My Dealer told me that 90% of the CR-V EX's are made in England and a Japan made is very rare. What's up ????
Hey Juice, Whats the gearing like between the two? Is it the same (CRV, Forester, manuals)? I thought the CRV, manual tranny, had a higher final gear ratio. And whats the split on the AWD for the Sub? Is it 50/50 (front/rear)?
I don't think there has been any quality differences. There are some differences in parts - close friend has a UK and the rear window and rear door supports look different. My salesman tried to persuade me to choose an EX that was on the lot, but I waited for a Chianti EX MT to arrive. When I insisted on waiting, he then checked and saw the one was arriving from Japan, and then stated he had more confidence in it overall. I don't think there really is any difference to be concerned about. Seems like 50/50 of arrivals here at dealerships in the East - dont have any firm figures though.
Didn't one of the recalls only affect models made in Japan? In other words, I wouldn't assume the UK made ones have less quality.
Les: CR-V is geared shorter, 4.7:1, something like that. Forester's final drive is 4.1:1 but then you have to account for individual gears and tire sizes. AWD is 50/50 split by default.
As for the Highlander, it's a bit bigger (seating for 7 now, even) and can carry an 1105-1500 lb payload, vs. 850 for the CR-V. For 2005 Toyota gave the 2.4l a power boost (along with better fuel economy) and added that 3rd row option.
It's hyper competitive now so everyone is making improvements.
Thanks juice for the reply, been down for the count with a nasty summer bug! So you have one of each? Which is your favorite...about to take a test drive. Even thought the Baja could be fun being a truck woman and all...thanks for responding to my post. I will check back soon. sg7
We have a '98 Forester, an '02 Legacy, and my toy, a '93 Miata.
If it's warm and sunny I'll take the Miata, but for bad weather and light trails the Forester is perfect. It's also more fun than the Legacy, IMO.
I'd buy another in a second, maybe even that ultra-quick turbo. Though you don't *need* that kind of performance and the more-than-adequate base engine is very fuel efficient - 23/30 MT5, 22/28 auto, both on regular octane.
Try a Baja turbo, quickest pickup this side of a V10 Ram R/T. But IMO there are better Subies. Baja is cramped inside and the bed is also small.
Or wait for the Honda SUT. They'll use the 3.5l V6 and it's supposed to have the most towing and payload of any Honda to date.
I'd shop the Forester and the CR-V. It's a little smaller/sportier, and comes with equipment like heated seats and mirrors that Honda doesn't offer in the US. If you live in the snow belt you'll appreciate the extras Subaru offers.
"... Eastern Upstate NY. We picked up an '03 LX for the wife and since theb have noticed that they are everywhere around here. Despite what some say about not a true AWD, the CRV does just fine on our back roads in all conditions. ... In a geography where 4 WD is a real plus demand for the CRV is strong." gerry100
I agree with gerry100 and varmint on the value of the RT 4WD - especially in the snow belt states. The ground clearance and the RT4WD were a real plus for me this past winter. I didn't have too much of a hassle with my previous Honda, but the ground clearance has helped a lot on side roads on my commute to work in the early snowy mornings.
Take a look at any of the permanent AWD small SUVs and compare their mileage with the same vehicle sans AWD. Then do the same with the reactive designs, like RT4WD and the systems in the Escape and VUE. The reactive designs (according to the EPA umbers) have a lesser negative impact on fuel economy.
If you are looking to explain the Forester's good gas mileage, check the curb weight. Last I checked, it was something like 200-300 lbs lower than the CR-V (depending on the model). The non AWD CR-V gets about 28 mpg, a boost of 2, by removing about 110 lbs. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the Forester's smaller size and lower weight are responsible for the mpg numbers, not the AWD system.
As for the gearing, the CR-V 5 speed is geared remarkably low. The Forester is not. That's why the CR-V is routinely clocked 0-60mph in the mid 8 second range and the 5 speed Forester is not.
I wasn't implying the permanent AWD system makes it *more* efficient, just that the penalty is very small, about the same as part-time systems.
Back when Subaru did sell FWD models, they were only 1-2 mpg worse than the AWD equivalents, about the same as for Honda's RT4WD.
More on topic, the Highlander being discussed above now gets 21/25 with automatic and permanent AWD, while the FWD model gets 22/27. 1-2 mpg penalty, similar to RT4WD.
The benchmark 0-60 for the Forester is 8.8 seconds so it's actually in the same ball park.
Unless we're talking about the turbo which is in a league by itself at 5.3 seconds, ahead of really slow cars like the S2000, Cayenne S, GTO, and Magnum Hemi. ;-)
The benchmark for the manual CR-V is 8.1. It's been clocked at that speed in several mags.
The average 0-60 is about 8.5 seconds.
The Forester XT (turbo) gets something like 19 in the EPA city cycle. I think the 2 ton MDX gets the same numbers. Obviously, a completely different animal.
I have a 1998 CR-V EX AWD Automatic and would like, at the next oil change, to use synthetic automatic transaxle fluid. Has any one done this and what brand do you use? I'm thinking of using Royal Purple synthetic trans fluid. Thanks for any replies, Dan
I took a look at the RoyalPurple.com site, and the application chart doesn't list Honda ATF-Z1 as a compatible specification. As far as I know, the only synthetic maker that claims ATF-Z1 compatibility is AMSOIL.
slugline, Royal Purple list Max ATF as being compatible With dexron III, a ATF that Honda recommends in place of Honda ATF. From what I hear from the different forums, If it is compatible, you should be able to use it. I will first see if any one else has tried it.
So I have 43k miles on my 2002 CRV and it is time for new tires. I'm pretty sure I want to get the Yokohama Avid Touring because I want a more quiet ride. I mainly do freeway driving and might be moving to a rainy city very soon. I want to keep using the stock wheels I currently have but would like to slightly improve the handling. I read previous posts saying that if I go with a wider tire, It will improve handling. A few options I've found on tirerack.com are:
Avid Touring 215/65-15 215/70-15 205/75-15
Avid S/T 225/70-15
Would any of these tires work on my stock wheels? Any recommendations?
Stock size is 205/70, so you probably don't want a taller sidewall if you're looking to improve handling. You'll actually lift the car slightly and introduce a little more isolation with a taller sidewall.
So the 215/65 might be best, wider and actually not quite as tall, but close.
215/70 or 225/70 are wider but raise the center of gravity. Steering will feel slightly more numb.
205/75 is worse all around. No wider and taller sidewall. This is a truck tire size.
Go with the 215/65 or consider a Plus One with new rims. Maybe even lightly used rims off an Element or another Honda.
I still have the stock on mine, but another owner put 225/70 Revos (Bridgestone) on stock rims and they are great. Nice looking, much improved handling. Also heard good things about the Avid - T4 - I believe is the one.
Just remember that if you significantly change the circumference of the tires you should also replace the spare because of the way RT4WD works. If you have a 2WD LX then it's not as important.
It might be best to wait until the 2005 model are available. They are rumored to use a 16" rim and appropriate tires. If you can wait for those, they might be the "safest" solution.
I guess the tolerance would be something to consider. I'm going to go to american tire/discount tire tomorrow.. I'll see what he has to say.
I found that Discounttire.com has the tires for like $89 dollars but discounttiredirect had them for $57. Same company but one delivers them like tirerack. The guy at the Discount Tire retail store said he would match the $57 price so for 4 tires, installed, out the door... $308.00. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Tire Rack told me +/- 3%. But they would not sell me 225/60R16s, when 215/60R16 is stock size. They were concerned about the tires rubbing the spring seat. Turns out they were wrong, FWIW, I've put 35,000 miles and it's never rubbed once.
Discount Tire Direct quoted the same 3% variance, but they did allow for the 225/60R16 tires.
My spare was a stock size 205/70R15, the diameter is actually 0.3" off, just outside of Subaru's specs. However, it's the spare, and once you account for wear that brings it to within the 0.25" tolerance.
I also keep the spare's pressure a bit higher, to be safe. I've never actually needed to use it.
If you are buying a tire in a different size than stock I would think you'd want to buy all five.
I'm sure if the specs are close as mentioned above there will be no issues but why worry about it? We're not talking $150 per tire. For $50-$80 you get piece of mind. You don't have to worry about getting that flat fixed immediately, just pop on the spare. And you can also include the spare in your rotation. 20% extra use of all the tires probably makes that $ spent on the extra tire moot.
In addition to asking other owners, I'd suggest checking with the manufacturer of Royal Purple to see if they will recommend their fluid in your car. Out of curiosity I sent three email inquiries to the tech department for three companies several months ago. Redline and Mobil 1 could not recommend their ATF for my CR-V. AMSOIL did.
Also, I wouldn't depend on the Dexron III compatibility too much. In my owner's manual, it says you can use Dexron III as a temporary replacement, but then replace it with Honda ATF as soon as possible. I am interpreting that to mean that using Dexron III is better than using nothing, but I don't read that as an endorsement of any sort.
Had my court date on the fire. Honda sends 3 people from CT (pretty far away). Have absolutely no proof of anything. Magistrate awards me double damages because of flagrant abuse of law by Honda. Instead of sending me a check, Honda hires some local law firm to appeal the case to a jury of 6 people.
Tell me, are they overdoing this? So now I have to appear in front of a jury for 1800 dollars. Take off another day of work. This is costing them way more than 1800 dollars.
The good news (?) is these fire are still occuring, and now on 04's, so the evidence is still mounting. In fact, since my case, I have gotten 6 emails of similar fires, 3 have been on 04's. So the problem is not solved in any way.
Anybody comntemlating an 04 CRV should understand 2 things: The fires are STILL occurring and HOnda is still not taking liability for any. I am really mad now
slugline, When I contacted R/P tech, they indicated that Honda would not release their specifications on their trans oil, so they were reluctant to recommend Max ATF for Honda. He also implied that sense Honda recommended the use of DexronIII in place of their fluid that Max would be just as good or better. Now what Amsoil did was test Honda fluid against DexronIII for compatibility and found that is was so from that basis they formulated a synthetic fluid that is compatible. On this basis I think that R/P Max ATF is probably just as good as amsoil's formulation but will wait for more information on this subject befor trying Max ATF. Thanks for the reply, Dan
There is an automatic right to appeal a small claims case. Because Honda hired some big trial firm (very well known), I have to go through bunch of procedural court issues before I get in front of the jury, and I am sure they will try to trip me up whenever possible. I have no problem in front of the jury. Just show the facts - they haven't changed. They could have just appealed to a judge, without a jury (which would have been a little more informal). But they chose the jury option, which tells me they are just trying to intimidate me. I would estimate Honda's cost so far, including the NHTSA investigation at 20-30K. The attroneys that are now handling Honda's case probably are 450/hr. Doesn't take long to get to 1860 dollars does it? Now that there are 3- 04 fires already reported to NHTSA, this is not going away. It's a shame. They lost fair and square and they had 3 Honda people present their case. Someone will get hurt and the trail will be long
I've been reading this Forum for a while, as we plan to buy a new '04 CR-V EX. After reading your post I've been searching the previous posts about the "fires" but could not find. Please tell me more..... Thanks
NHTSA has investigated Honda for 03 CRV fires. The results showed 22 fires as of 2/29/04. Many were posted here. They are still continuing, despite what we thought was outreach on Honda's part. NHTSA has already gotten 3 complaints of 04 fires. All fires, as best as I can tell, happened at less than 10,000 miles, with most occuring in the 5K range. They are violent, fast moving fires -trust me on that one. Honda says "dealer problem" but all, as best I can tell happened after the FIRST and only first oil change - making dealer problem hard to believe as the sole cause. If you want specific links to the NHTSA and other info, email me offline. Honda is obviously playing hardball tactics on this, so keep that in mind - and be careful for at least a week after your first oil change
Looking to replace our 95 camry with 04 cr-v or 05 subaru forester xt. XT is far more rewarding to drive, but also costs 3k more. Anyone have any suggestions to tip the scale in either direction.
Sabrina: you go girl. $1800 pretty much recovers your initial loss, doesn't it?
They're probably appealing so they don't have to admit fault. This is about much, much more than the $1800. It's about engine fires that are potentially life-threatening.
I bet in the end they end up issuing an NHTSA-mandated recall to install some sort of heat shield to keep oil off the hot spots and prevent those fires in case of faulty oil filter installation, or perhaps re-route some of the wiring, which is actually pretty common.
Thing is, even a $20 heat shield, maybe $100 installed with labor costs included, add up to a lot when you consider how many have sold since the 2002 intro. What, probably 300,000 CR-Vs? So we're talking about 3 million dollars, ballpark guesstimate.
More than that, they'd have to pay off the 25 owners that have already had engine fires.
jalterio: if you are prepare for the higher ownership costs (gas, insurance, up-front price), I think you'll find the XT is an extremely rewarding vehicle.
HP is stated at 210, but on the dyno they easily beat the WRX, so it's more like 240hp. Several dynos have shown these. Torque at the crank is actually in the 265 lb-ft range. Performance is not only unmatched, noone comes even close, period. You'll blow away Porsche Cayenne Ss.
You also get heated seats, heated mirrors (good for snow or rain to keep them clear), front windshield wiper de-icers, rear windshield wiper de-icers, 16" rims, a 67% longer powertrain warranty, and 3 years free roadside assistance.
Actually, if you hurry, I'm not even sure the CR-V will carry a price advantage. Fitzmall.com has a 2004 5-speed for $21,802, they're in MD near the nation's capital. And auto is going for as little as $22,092.
That's probably because the 2005 are beginning to arrive. Of course the 2005s get slightly better gas mileage but they'll cost more right now.
Moonroof comes in a premium package with leather, so you can't equip it identically to the CR-V. The moonroof itself is massive, perhaps you've seen one but it seems about 3 times as big as Honda's. With the premium package expect to pay just under $24k.
If the budget is tight the CR-V is a good choice as well. Good luck shopping.
Hi all, I just test drove the Ex 5-speed for the day. I have already driven the automatic. I am a stick woman for sure. I LOVE, LOVE this car, but there is potentially a HUGE issue. The bucket seat edge was so large I kept hitting it each time I shifted and it began to really cause discomfort in the ride. I can't tell you how sad this makes me, as this car is my dream car. Took it on some fav back roads and she handled like a dream. I did not try another manual today, but I will next week, to see if it's the car...or me...the 5'4 driver. This one already has 700 miles on it...That is a bit strange to me as I know they sell fast. It slipped that it was a "dealer trade." It also felt a bit bucky in 2nd coming down the unpaved but flat road. Any women out there small like me that have experienced this? I would deeply appreciate feedback...I don't want the Forester...this is first choice. sg7
All the posts about synthetic ATF has me thinking. Is there a suitable Royal Purple or Amsoil replacement for the dual pump fluid that apparently wears out around 25K miles? That would be nice. The stock Honda fluid apparently is not up to the task of holding up for ~90K miles like the manual says.
At 15K miles I just bought a K&N air filter and installed it today. Direct fit and only $45 online. Stock Honda filter is $19. The better performing, re usable K&N will be paid for in no time.
tomk17, I contacted R/P on both the ATF and Dual Pump fluid, there reply was that Honda wont release the spec's on the two, so they wont recommend their products for Honda. Honda does recommend DexronIII in place of their ATF, which is compatible to Royal Purple Max ATF and before Honda went to dual pump fluid they recommended their ATF fluid for the rear differential but it didn't hold up to good so they came up with dual pump fluid. I would think the Royal Purple synchromax fluid would be compatible to the dual pump fluid. Royal Purple wont recommend it until Honda gives their approval. Amsoil did their own test on the Honda ATF to come up with their formulation that is compatible with Honda ATF. Honda stile does not recommend it. I have another year to go on my warranty on my 1998 Honda CR-V, so next year I will try the synchromax fluid in my rear differential to see how it works, unless they,R/P come up with fluids that are approved by Honda before then.
Each owner is free to use any fluid they feel comfortable with in his own car, but Honda's recommendations are unambiguous to anyone who can read the owner's manual. The phrase "may use _______ as a temporary replacement" doesn't equal a recommendation to me.
Just as we can get by for a short period with ordinary water in our radiators, or a compact spare on one of the wheels, you can get by with Dexron III in your tranny or rear-diff. But Honda doesn't want us to run the car like this all the time.
The fact they are apealing when they should have had their act together in court just further shows their cover up. Tell me, in any way do all these NHSTA cases come up in trial. You may want to tell Honda you are no entertaining offers to speak with local TV stations about your situation. Tel them the station is investigating the fires. Perhaps they will then do the right thing and settle. I bet a month or so later a newly designed oil filter appears too! Just proves Honda is no better than any of the other automakers...a bunch of dogs!
slugline, what do you think the reason is for not being able to use these compatible fluids? Nissan and Toyota both use to use the same wording but now use "It's equivalency" I think it is a word play using semantics "temporary replacement", means keep coming back to us for our products, spells greed. What do you think? Thanks for your reply, Dan
I brought the NHTSA cases up. And now I have two months to get more. If a redisgned filter comes out, PLEASE post that here. That would be incredible information, not just for me, but for everyone else. According to the NHTSA info, there is at least one major suit out of Georgia on this, - if I didn't that mention before. Although I can't say 100%, it appears that all or most of the fires started after the last filters got changed, so if I were Honda that would be a place to start.
The real question is this. I know they stopped selling the old filter at retail about september but when did they start putting the new filter on cars at the factory? Must have been well before september.
Why should she settle now? She already won double the damages for her trouble. Honda will cut that in half, perhaps less. And surely they'll want her to sign a non-disclosure statement. She has nothing to gain.
Sabrina: go in anonymously and buy a filter from a different dealer, then compare the part numbers.
Watch, 3 months from now there will be a TSB or perhaps even a recall of some sort to retrofit a heat shield or something similar. I'm not a betting man but the smart money is on Sabrina.
Thx for the update. But I must admit, I am totally surprised by Honda in this case. It flies in the face of all logic to me. It sounds alot like the Ford Explorer tire situation. Sheesh, you bring in your toasted car, Honda says "not a defect" and leaves you hanging. Did you ever find out if the oil filter was changed correctly by the dealer? Was there a double gasket?
After the Tire fiascos, sludge fiascos etc etc you'd think someone would learn a lesson and step up and say 'hey we have a bad part, we'll replace it on your next oil change' and be done with it...assuming that is the issue.
Ironically Hyundai has just admitted that their Airbags do not function properly in one of their cars if you do not weigh enough. They have no real solution for the problem either. At least they are not trying to cover it up.
Once someone is dead I am sure it will be a whole new ball game. Of course by then Honda's rep will be damaged, they will be out big $$$$ and most importantly someone will have died for nothing.
Comments
-juice
Whats the gearing like between the two? Is it the same (CRV, Forester, manuals)? I thought the CRV, manual tranny, had a higher final gear ratio. And whats the split on the AWD for the Sub? Is it 50/50 (front/rear)?
Les
Les: CR-V is geared shorter, 4.7:1, something like that. Forester's final drive is 4.1:1 but then you have to account for individual gears and tire sizes. AWD is 50/50 split by default.
As for the Highlander, it's a bit bigger (seating for 7 now, even) and can carry an 1105-1500 lb payload, vs. 850 for the CR-V. For 2005 Toyota gave the 2.4l a power boost (along with better fuel economy) and added that 3rd row option.
It's hyper competitive now so everyone is making improvements.
-juice
Also, still improving, but my MT gets 22/28 so far. Depends on the driver, tire psi, etc.
If it's warm and sunny I'll take the Miata, but for bad weather and light trails the Forester is perfect. It's also more fun than the Legacy, IMO.
I'd buy another in a second, maybe even that ultra-quick turbo. Though you don't *need* that kind of performance and the more-than-adequate base engine is very fuel efficient - 23/30 MT5, 22/28 auto, both on regular octane.
Try a Baja turbo, quickest pickup this side of a V10 Ram R/T. But IMO there are better Subies. Baja is cramped inside and the bed is also small.
Or wait for the Honda SUT. They'll use the 3.5l V6 and it's supposed to have the most towing and payload of any Honda to date.
I'd shop the Forester and the CR-V. It's a little smaller/sportier, and comes with equipment like heated seats and mirrors that Honda doesn't offer in the US. If you live in the snow belt you'll appreciate the extras Subaru offers.
-juice
Despite what some say about not a true AWD, the CRV does just fine on our back roads in all conditions. ... In a geography where 4 WD is a real plus demand for the CRV is strong." gerry100
I agree with gerry100 and varmint on the value of the RT 4WD - especially in the snow belt states. The ground clearance and the RT4WD were a real plus for me this past winter. I didn't have too much of a hassle with my previous Honda, but the ground clearance has helped a lot on side roads on my commute to work in the early snowy mornings.
Take a look at any of the permanent AWD small SUVs and compare their mileage with the same vehicle sans AWD. Then do the same with the reactive designs, like RT4WD and the systems in the Escape and VUE. The reactive designs (according to the EPA umbers) have a lesser negative impact on fuel economy.
If you are looking to explain the Forester's good gas mileage, check the curb weight. Last I checked, it was something like 200-300 lbs lower than the CR-V (depending on the model). The non AWD CR-V gets about 28 mpg, a boost of 2, by removing about 110 lbs. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the Forester's smaller size and lower weight are responsible for the mpg numbers, not the AWD system.
As for the gearing, the CR-V 5 speed is geared remarkably low. The Forester is not. That's why the CR-V is routinely clocked 0-60mph in the mid 8 second range and the 5 speed Forester is not.
Back when Subaru did sell FWD models, they were only 1-2 mpg worse than the AWD equivalents, about the same as for Honda's RT4WD.
More on topic, the Highlander being discussed above now gets 21/25 with automatic and permanent AWD, while the FWD model gets 22/27. 1-2 mpg penalty, similar to RT4WD.
The benchmark 0-60 for the Forester is 8.8 seconds so it's actually in the same ball park.
Unless we're talking about the turbo which is in a league by itself at 5.3 seconds, ahead of really slow cars like the S2000, Cayenne S, GTO, and Magnum Hemi. ;-)
-juice
The average 0-60 is about 8.5 seconds.
The Forester XT (turbo) gets something like 19 in the EPA city cycle. I think the 2 ton MDX gets the same numbers. Obviously, a completely different animal.
The bottom line is I just don't see how permanent AWD is costing you much in fuel economy, maybe 1 or 2 mpg, that's it.
-juice
Thanks for any replies,
Dan
Thanks for the reply,
Dan
A few options I've found on tirerack.com are:
Avid Touring
215/65-15
215/70-15
205/75-15
Avid S/T
225/70-15
Would any of these tires work on my stock wheels? Any recommendations?
So the 215/65 might be best, wider and actually not quite as tall, but close.
215/70 or 225/70 are wider but raise the center of gravity. Steering will feel slightly more numb.
205/75 is worse all around. No wider and taller sidewall. This is a truck tire size.
Go with the 215/65 or consider a Plus One with new rims. Maybe even lightly used rims off an Element or another Honda.
-juice
Also heard good things about the Avid - T4 - I believe is the one.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
thanks!
http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosconsumer/0406/23/g01-192049.htm
It might be best to wait until the 2005 model are available. They are rumored to use a 16" rim and appropriate tires. If you can wait for those, they might be the "safest" solution.
Varmint
2004 Honda SUV Olympics
Look into that, though. If it's outside of Honda's tolerances I'd consider getting a set of 5 tires.
Remember, Japanese makes generally have very tight tolerances, there's not a lot of "slop" built in.
-juice
I found that Discounttire.com has the tires for like $89 dollars but discounttiredirect had them for $57. Same company but one delivers them like tirerack. The guy at the Discount Tire retail store said he would match the $57 price so for 4 tires, installed, out the door... $308.00. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Discount Tire Direct quoted the same 3% variance, but they did allow for the 225/60R16 tires.
My spare was a stock size 205/70R15, the diameter is actually 0.3" off, just outside of Subaru's specs. However, it's the spare, and once you account for wear that brings it to within the 0.25" tolerance.
I also keep the spare's pressure a bit higher, to be safe. I've never actually needed to use it.
-juice
I'm sure if the specs are close as mentioned above there will be no issues but why worry about it? We're not talking $150 per tire. For $50-$80 you get piece of mind. You don't have to worry about getting that flat fixed immediately, just pop on the spare. And you can also include the spare in your rotation. 20% extra use of all the tires probably makes that $ spent on the extra tire moot.
My $0.02.
Also, I wouldn't depend on the Dexron III compatibility too much. In my owner's manual, it says you can use Dexron III as a temporary replacement, but then replace it with Honda ATF as soon as possible. I am interpreting that to mean that using Dexron III is better than using nothing, but I don't read that as an endorsement of any sort.
Tell me, are they overdoing this? So now I have to appear in front of a jury for 1800 dollars. Take off another day of work. This is costing them way more than 1800 dollars.
The good news (?) is these fire are still occuring, and now on 04's, so the evidence is still mounting. In fact, since my case, I have gotten 6 emails of similar fires, 3 have been on 04's. So the problem is not solved in any way.
Anybody comntemlating an 04 CRV should understand 2 things: The fires are STILL occurring and HOnda is still not taking liability for any. I am really mad now
Thanks for the reply,
Dan
Magistrate awards me double damages because of flagrant abuse of law...
One might naively expect there are no grounds for appeal.
tidester, host
Thanks
They're probably appealing so they don't have to admit fault. This is about much, much more than the $1800. It's about engine fires that are potentially life-threatening.
I bet in the end they end up issuing an NHTSA-mandated recall to install some sort of heat shield to keep oil off the hot spots and prevent those fires in case of faulty oil filter installation, or perhaps re-route some of the wiring, which is actually pretty common.
Thing is, even a $20 heat shield, maybe $100 installed with labor costs included, add up to a lot when you consider how many have sold since the 2002 intro. What, probably 300,000 CR-Vs? So we're talking about 3 million dollars, ballpark guesstimate.
More than that, they'd have to pay off the 25 owners that have already had engine fires.
-juice
HP is stated at 210, but on the dyno they easily beat the WRX, so it's more like 240hp. Several dynos have shown these. Torque at the crank is actually in the 265 lb-ft range. Performance is not only unmatched, noone comes even close, period. You'll blow away Porsche Cayenne Ss.
You also get heated seats, heated mirrors (good for snow or rain to keep them clear), front windshield wiper de-icers, rear windshield wiper de-icers, 16" rims, a 67% longer powertrain warranty, and 3 years free roadside assistance.
Actually, if you hurry, I'm not even sure the CR-V will carry a price advantage. Fitzmall.com has a 2004 5-speed for $21,802, they're in MD near the nation's capital. And auto is going for as little as $22,092.
That's probably because the 2005 are beginning to arrive. Of course the 2005s get slightly better gas mileage but they'll cost more right now.
Moonroof comes in a premium package with leather, so you can't equip it identically to the CR-V. The moonroof itself is massive, perhaps you've seen one but it seems about 3 times as big as Honda's. With the premium package expect to pay just under $24k.
If the budget is tight the CR-V is a good choice as well. Good luck shopping.
-juice
5 million dollar recall? Priceless.
Just as we can get by for a short period with ordinary water in our radiators, or a compact spare on one of the wheels, you can get by with Dexron III in your tranny or rear-diff. But Honda doesn't want us to run the car like this all the time.
The fact they are apealing when they should have had their act together in court just further shows their cover up. Tell me, in any way do all these NHSTA cases come up in trial. You may want to tell Honda you are no entertaining offers to speak with local TV stations about your situation. Tel them the station is investigating the fires. Perhaps they will then do the right thing and settle. I bet a month or so later a newly designed oil filter appears too! Just proves Honda is no better than any of the other automakers...a bunch of dogs!
Thanks for your reply,
Dan
The real question is this. I know they stopped selling the old filter at retail about september but when did they start putting the new filter on cars at the factory? Must have been well before september.
Me thinks they protest too much....Especially now
Sabrina: go in anonymously and buy a filter from a different dealer, then compare the part numbers.
Watch, 3 months from now there will be a TSB or perhaps even a recall of some sort to retrofit a heat shield or something similar. I'm not a betting man but the smart money is on Sabrina.
-juice
Ironically Hyundai has just admitted that their Airbags do not function properly in one of their cars if you do not weigh enough. They have no real solution for the problem either. At least they are not trying to cover it up.
Once someone is dead I am sure it will be a whole new ball game. Of course by then Honda's rep will be damaged, they will be out big $$$$ and most importantly someone will have died for nothing.