By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
3rd rows and DVD players are new to this segment, so naturally a "loaded" one will push the price limits for this segment. Just don't get the DVD player or the 3rd row.
I think mid 20s is about where is belongs, beyond that you're better off in something else. It was a little scary to see Edmunds load theirs up to $32.7k even without the 3rd row.
-juice
Poster said basically that the new RAV4 blows the CR-V away and the new 'V better match up. So I ask how much this spectacular new RAV4 would cost. You respond and say around $26K (and perhaps as high as ~$33K).
I guess that proves my point. I wouldn't cross shop a ~$33K RAV4 with a CR-V that even with a new model won't approach those figures. Currently a CR-V EX can be had for under $21K. Add a few percent for the new model and still not even close to the RAV4 in dollars.
IME Toyota's have always been a bit pricier than a comparable Honda. Therefore no real surprise to me regarding RAV4 vs. CR-V pricing.
I would expect the 07 to have Nav available and also a Hybrid model, but I've been wrong before.
You can certainly get less equipment on a RAV4, in fact the one I was browsing was under $21k and it was an AWD model, so they go lower than that, even.
Toyota has a very wide range of prices, just because they reach $33k does not mean they don't overlap with CR-V prices. My point was that not everyone wants a DVD player and a V6, though it's nice to have choices.
-juice
What dealer is quoting that price? thanks!
Maybe someone could add $4K in accessories/options but I think they'd be hard pressed. Even if that would make the MSRP what you say, that isn't what they're going to pay.
You're used to Fords and all their options. Honda doesn't work that way.
That would be a hard loser of $785. I don't know ANY dealer that will lose money on selling a new car...do you?
Should be interesting to see what comes up next. I did sit in all the Honda's, and the CRV's interior looks most dated. Looking forward to a redo, although I might end up buying the Pilot since we need space for a family of 5, including 3 child seats.
He loves the CRV and owns one, but his is manual.I think he is kind of "old school". Isn't it true that automatic transmissions are much better than they used to be?
vandeebgroup, "Honda CR-V: Prices Paid & Buying Experience" #2875, 14 Jan 2006 7:56 pm
Apparently you aren't familiar with holdback, FTD incentives, etc. Plenty of ways for the dealer to make money when they sell below invoice.
You may not know ANY dealer who sells for under invoice but myself and plenty others do. Do you have access to the Chicago Tribune? If so, find the dealer who sells for below invoice. It isn't very hard.
Steve, Host
He loves the CRV and owns one, but his is manual.I think he is kind of "old school". Isn't it true that automatic transmissions are much better than they used to be?
IF you are a DRIVER you get manual. If you are just another Big-Mac-eating-cell-phone-talking-do-anything-but-drive kind of driver, you tend to get auto, when in fact you should be taking a bus. :-)
P.S. Your father is right :P
In todays automotive world an automatic tranny will certainly have the longevity of a manual provided it is maintained properly.
As for special concerns, don't abuse it (same would go for a manual tranny or any mechanical component) and follow the manufacturer's suggested maintenance procedures.
I also include the destination fee which ads don't include. We routinely sell CRV's below invoice, but you have to take into consideration the $550 destination fee, which brings you above the 21K.
The manual has a better felt powerband, in my opinion.
I realized too late that I probably should have bought a manual.However, I was told that the re-sale value is higher for an automatic if I do chose to change vehicles in a couple of years.
I have always driven a stick...all my other cars have been small speedy vehicles.
I just retired my 1984 Honda Civic 1500-S. It was a sad day, but I am keeping it in the garage and will "pimp-it- out" later. It has 186,000 miles on it and just keeps going and going!!!
No air conditioning, and I live in Tucson, Arizona!
The real difference (in terms of resale) is that a dealer will have a much easier time selling an automatic. So they are likely to give you a better "trade-in" price. They do not want to keep the 5MT on their lot waiting for the right buyer to come along.
I always figured I would sell mine out-right, rather than doing a trade. But the timing didn't work out. I went the trade-in route swapping a 99 5MT CR-V for an Acura MDX. The dealer gave me a big frown when he heard that my trade was a stick. This was due in part to the fact that they already had a 1999 CR-V 5MT on the lot... in the same color... with about the same number of miles on it. Mine had a few valuable aftermarket accessories (heated leather being the most noteworthy) which probably made things easier for them to swallow.
$600 below invoice is certainly doable, but keep in mind that all Honda dealers pay the same price.
Does this make sense? There is only so much a dealer can work with regarding discounts.
I know what people are paying. I already posted it.
Perhaps you should contact the Honda dealers who are selling below the number you mention as there seems to be plenty of them judging by the prices being paid.
Also, it's always a feel good for me when a person doesn't even know the name of the vehicle they are selling. Makes everything else they say a little less credible IMHO.
Ciao for now!
Ever see those ads? $19,000, with small print that says after $2000 down.
Since people are curious, here's a real world scenario, two no-haggle dealers in the same region, Fitzgerald Toyota and Browns Honda. The latter has CR-Vs for:
LX: 20-21.3k
EX: 22-23.3k
SE: 24-25k
Fitz has RAV4s from 21330 to 25450 And there was only one CR-V under 20999, so there isn't much selection that's less than the cheapest RAV4. The V6s aren't here yet so that makes the comparison easy (no CR-V V6s either!).
Basically they overlap a lot. The idea that the RAV4 costs so much more just isn't the case in this market.
You gotta love competition.
Thoughts on the auto tranny - you wanted an auto, so the mistake would have been to buy what you didn't want.
-juice
We get people all the time who say "My friend paid $X...will you match this price?" The price they usually throw out is a well below cost number, not just invoice, but dead cost...that they cannot prove. It's usually a fishing expedition. It's all part of their game I guess.
Toyota is simply learning from Honda's success and trying to one-up them. With the CR-V and Pilot, Honda capped Toyota sales by offering a slightly larger vehicle in the same category. So Toyota is probably cancelling the Camry-based Highlander only to replace it with a new mid-size cross-over vehicle based on the Sienna. It will not be named "Highlander", but it will still compete in the Highlander's slot.
I have two cars: an '05 CR-V EX auto and a '99 Saab 9-5 with stick and sporty exhaust. The Saab exhaust is loud enough that the dealer thinks it needs a new muffler when I pull into the garage for service.
I enjoy winding through the gears in the 9-5 and listening to it bark. But lacking the sound effects, I'd just as soon have an auto, like the missus has on her 9-5 and I have on my CR-V.
I had a 1987 Accord sedan with a 4-speed automatic transmission that my father had purchased brand new with 10 miles on it. The first transmission problem happened at 240 000 miles. Unfortunately, the very expensive repairs lasted only 15 000 miles and I ended up selling the car at 260 000, but we still had about 16 or 17 years of flawless transmission performance.
My father now has a 2000 CR-V 2WD LX (bought brand new) with about 90 000 miles on the 4-speed automatic. I expect it to last as long as the Accord.
hooptym...
If you want a CR-V that can last 200k+ miles, an automatic should be fine, and of course it will have a higher resale value. The only thing is that once an automatic starts to have trouble it's done for and even big repairs don't last long. A manual can last longer if properly taken care of, with only the occasional clutch repair, but a well-maintained automatic can reach 200k easily, IMHO.
Other than longevity, it's all a matter of personal taste. I myself will have a 5-speed manual in my next car (2007 Honda Fit), and in addition to better mileage, it's just much more fun. However, the automatic CR-V gets better fuel economy than the manual (22/27 vs. 21/26), so that's another benefit in your direction.
Don't worry, and enjoy your CR-V!
Also since you live in Arizona, your CR-V was probably made in Japan, and in my opinion that stands for a lot.
Original Duelers on our '03, useless by 23K miles - still legal on highway for a few thousand more miles but useless in the snow.
Replaced with Nokian WR all weather with a 50K warranty.
( like them on my Avalon).
Only $10 more each tire, no reason for anyone to rpelace with anymore Duelers.
The suggested used card price difference between a manual and automatic transmission is nearly zero for a 1st Gen CR-V EX. Considering you paid more for an automatic you're actually losing money over the long run.
If you're talking only a couple of years, say a 2003 or 2004 CR-V, then yes the automatic is going to have a higher suggested used car price. But not by even as much as the original difference in price between an auto and manual transmission.
However, the final choice is which do you prefer to drive? Buy the transmission you'll be happy with, maintain it properly, and it will last a long time.
JM2C
This is according to EPA estimates. Real World, not necessarily the case. It really depends on the driver(s).
I took it back to the used car dealer 3 days after I bought it, told him "tranny makes noise, like a hydralic pump suckin air" :confuse:
His response, "I own one, and they ALL make 'noises'. It's a "new" car to you, and it'll take getting used to." :mad:
Well, 10,000 miles (and 65 days AFTER the lemon-law time limit) later, I'm driving it up on a flatbed wrecker, for it's FIRST trip to the local Cottman-man for a FULL rebuild. The rebuild takes 3 weeks, but I get it back, after I drop a check for $3500.00 on his desk.
Now, it's coming home 01-29-2006, after it's SECOND visit/rebuild, 3 months after the FIRST one. Cottman tells me "I'm OVER the 12,000 mile/12 month (which ever comes first) warrenty, but they'll honor it, because -
1. one of the parts used in the initial rebuild was 'defective' (Great - that saves me another 3500!), and
2. the tech remembers I DID come in and tell them there are still problems with the previous Manager waving them off as 'new parts, need time to seat in' (like hard shifting, fighting to get it to over-drive, parking paul not engaging sometimes, no reverse unless I 'tach-it-up' to 1500 RPM or better are normal? --- BTW, the shop is now under NEW Managment!)
3. the tech then tells me, "may be you'd best consider SELLING this one! There is a problem in the tranny/tranfer case that frankly, I've never seen before and can't figure what it is! It MAY be a manufacturer's defect! - I'm afraid you're going to have MORE problems down the road!" (This guy is CHOCK=FULL of cheerful news, ain't he?)
What I need (other than a fifth of something) - has anyone out there heard of Honda tranmissions going sour like this before?
Has there been ANY recalls/notifications on transmission / tranfer case problems effecting the 2000 model year?
This happens again (and I am SURE it will!), I don't keep $3500 in the cookie jar to keep throwing at the problem.
Help? - Please???
Jim S.
I realized too late that I probably should have bought a manual.However, I was told that the re-sale value is higher for an automatic if I do chose to change vehicles in a couple of years.
I have always driven a stick...all my other cars have been small speedy vehicles.
I just retired my 1984 Honda Civic 1500-S. It was a sad day, but I am keeping it in the garage and will "pimp-it- out" later. It has 186,000 miles on it and just keeps going and going!!!
No air conditioning, and I live in Tucson, Arizona!
Hey, my first Honda was an 85 Civic DX. I learned how to drive stick in that car (after driving an 83 Chevy celebrity, auto)! I have some fondest memories of her.
I too bought a Gen 1 CR-V with auto once. Thinking that "everyone has them, it can't be that bad" -- WRONG! I hated it, I literally hated the undecisivness and the inability to do what I wanted it to do.
I hated driving it in traffic. I don't know what people rave about autos in traffic, you have to switch from gas to brake all the time. At least with stick, you leave it in one gear and just play with the throttle. And in vehicles with automatic the brake pedal is not inline with the throttle. The brake pedal is raised a bit, or the throttle is recessed. I am used to having all my pedals inline. Makes it alot easyer for heel-toeing.
I was actually glad when it got stolen. Would I ever buy another auto, not as long as I have all my limbs. :-)
Do you know how the vehicle was maintained/driven in the first 47K miles before you acquired it?
7% of us drive stick shifts.
93% drive automatics.
You have a much bigger buying audience if you are selling an automatic. They are much easier to re-sell.
-juice
I am, and continue to be, impressed with the CRV though. It was my choice, even in the face of the very nice '06 RAV4. The RAV4 is a great little car, but for being a 5 year old model, the 2nd generation CRV still holds its own. I can only imagine how good the redesign (3rd generation) will be. The Saturn VUE was also nice, especially with that Honda V6 engine. We dont need that much power, but with that engine, the Saturn made its way into our Final 4.
You can tell a difference with that extra 10 hp's the RAV4 currently has over the CRV (166 vs 156). However, the SAFETY features of the CRV really stood out to me. It was like a Volvo, in my mind, with just about every safety feature standard, whereas side airbags are an option on the RAV4 and the VUE.
Pound for pound, and feature for feature, I still feel the CRV is a better "value" than the new RAV4 or the VUE.
I also like the fact that Honda still manages a manual transmission option. The RAV4 does not. If we had bought the CRV, we would have gotten the 5 speed manual. I do wish Honda would allow a bit more flexibility with the exterior/interior color combinations. If I want black exterior, I like to be able to get tan interior, and not be forced into an interior color based on exterior color.
We bought the Honda Element because that's the car my wife really wanted. However, if anyone is looking for a compact/mid sized SUV, you couldnt go wrong with the CRV, the RAV4 or the VUE, with the CRV having the best "value" ratio of those 3, in my opinion.
Hold on a second, the phone's ringing.
sure honey, I'll pick up the dry cleaning on my way home
Where was I?
-juice
I can tell you understand!
Yep, it will be her car.