Just want some general feedback. I'm thinking I could get it for around $10,500. Looks like the interior is almost perfect and may have a minor door ding or 2 on the exterior. What's the general consensus on what I should expect for the gas mileage?
Would this be a deal I couldn't pass up? How many miles are these expected to run?
As long as you keep repairing it, it will run forever.
2001 was the last year for that generation of the CR-V. Honda had 6 years to work the bugs out. So it *should* be a very reliable vehicle. The CR-V has been rated very highly in just about every publication which attempts to measure either quality or reliability. Having said that, there are no guarantees.
As for pricing, that depends very much on things like where you live, the color of the vehicle (gotta be silver, green, or one other color), and a host of other factors. Your best bet is to use Edmunds TMV as a guide.
I currently have a 2002 CRV (UK) which incidentally is our 3rd CRV all of which have been extremely reliable. However, recently my SatNav stopped working with the display telling me that there was "invalid disk data" and it is impossible to turn it on or, access the menu. I am very sceptical about the DVD disc being corrupt and wondered if anyone else has had a similar problem or, can tell me how to bypass the start up problem and check the system itself?
I wouldn't count on that spy shot looking like the next CR-V. Its just some old photo chop someone found. Honda seems to keep most details of their upcoming vehicles under wraps as long as they can. You might find some concrete pictures and details by the end of the summer at best.
I would think you might be able to get a good deal on an 06 right before the new ones comes out so maybe late September or October might be a good time. I would wait until your sure what the next generation looks like before buying though
Thank you for replying. I was thinking that I should wait too... Honda is pretty secretive.... I have a 2003 CR-V now..but I'd like to trade it... They made nice changes to the 2006 model
radio controls on steering wheel 16" tires better headrests (for rear view)
I'm thinking of buying a used Honda CR-V. I understand that 2001 is the best year for that particular model. Is it possible to find a five speed that is just two wheel drive? Thanks.
I was also told not to use an over the spare tire bike rack for the CRV by the thule web site - in regard to a trailer hitch mount - does anyone know if such a mount will clear the spare tire?
You probably didn't get a response because the NAV option is not available in the USA.
Best time to buy? Right when the new model comes out. The outgoing Civic could be had for a bargain price right before the 06 models came out, even the Civic hybrids were being discounted at Browns Honda (they post no-haggle internet prices).
On my way to work yesterday some (you fill in the blank) driving a Jeep does one of those violent lane changes-- you know, crank the wheel hard to the left while flooring it. The problem was that I was in the left lane at the time. I didn't have time to hit the horn... just slam on the brakes and try not to cause a head on collision. Luckily, there was a small gap in the oncoming traffic.
It was raining at the time and the CR-V handled wonderfully. Once I regained my composure I thought "Cool!" By the way, when I later caught up with the idiot I saw that their left rear quarter-panel was already smashed in. I guess they thought they needed even more practice side-swiping people.
Just wondering what everybody else out there thinks about this: My 2006 CRV EX 5 speed manual has a recommeded oil change interval of every 10K miles. The manual only recommmends changing the filter every other oil change (maybe to prevent those nasty fires!?!), or 20K miles. Furthermore, the manual states clearly in break in section that you should only change the oil at the recommended interval (10K).
While I was raised on the every 3K mile oil and filter change by my Dad I have since kind of evolved into a 5K interval for my vehicles (even my 2001 Audi A4 that had 10K interval rec) with synthetic oil and a new filter at each change. I read many years ago the Consumer Reports test of NY taxis that showed basically no difference in engine wear for taxis with 3K and other, longer intervals and the introduction of synthetic oils kind of won me over to the longer interval.
So I am pondering changing the oil on my new CR-V at 5K and putting on a new filter as well. I will use synthetic oil and a Honda filter. Just wondering if anybody out there has any thoughts on whether this actually might be a bad thing and that I should just wait to the 10K mark.
Any comments (nice ones anyway!?!) would be appreciated.
My father-in-law has a 2004 lx CR-V. He wants to do a brake job. The website he's buying them from has both ceramic and semi-metallic. One set of pads states that the OE is ceramic and another says they are semi-metallic. How do I know which is the right set? I thought maybe the front was ceramic and the back were semi, but i get conflicting answers on a few different sites. :confuse:
I have a 2001 CR-V and over 104,000 miles on it already :surprise:
Never have I kept a car that even got close to 100K. But I've never had a Honda before, either! I've been really good about the scheduled maintenance (ouch $$), oil changes, etc.
My question is this -- how many miles does your CR-V have -and- honestly, how much farther do you think it can go?
I live along the Gulf Coast and after last year's hurricane evacuations, I need to be able to count on my car. I also owe another year's worth of payments, too.
I've got a '99 CRV with 118K miles and still going strong, just do all the maint. I'm hoping for 3 more years out of it. Have you changed the timing belt yet? That's the big maint. expense item and is due at 105K miles.
2002 crv lx auto 28,000. always garaged,washed and wax every 3 month. its my wifes so it is new in and out. eventually will replace the car at the ten yr mark.
I have talked with a number of Honda owners who are thinking the same thing as you. In fact I am considering purchasing by the end of Aug. Primarily because, at that point there will still be enought to choose from and they will be vying to get rid of them so there is room for the 2007 models. My husbands last purchase was great and it was in June, the end of the model year 2004. He got a great price after fanagling a bit with the dealer. Many of my friends who have Hondas have suggested July or Aug to get the vehicle you like at the price you are looking for, perhaps even better than you expected.
The thing to keep in mind is that when you buy that late in the model year you essentially have a one year old car and the depreciation that goes with it.
Yes Honda's hold their value but you still will lose something. Also, the '07 will be a new model. New features, new engineering ,etc. When you buy an '06 you are buying a six year old design. IIWM I'd at least wait to see what the '07 looks like. You can still probably find an '06 at that point if that's what you want.
that's why i wish they were releasing the 07 CR-V now ala 07 camry. there is going to be a big premium initially for buying a re-design, and it would be nice to have an extra depreciation-free 6 months or so to offset it.
"The thing to keep in mind is that when you buy that late in the model year you essentially have a one year old car and the depreciation that goes with it.
Yes Honda's hold their value but you still will lose something. Also, the '07 will be a new model. New features, new engineering ,etc. When you buy an '06 you are buying a six year old design. IIWM I'd at least wait to see what the '07 looks like. You can still probably find an '06 at that point if that's what you want."
Your point is good, but there are contrary factors here. For one thing, the 2006 CR-V is not the same vehicle as the 2002 CR-V; it has standard stability control, air bags, etc., as well as numerous small improvements like audio on the steering wheel and passenger side door locks.
For another thing, the first year of any automobile is something of a gamble. The 2002 CR-V, for example, had that marvelous center storage compartment below the radio - that was 1 inch too small to hold a standard size CD. I wouldn't worry about quality with a Honda, but there will be teething pains. The 2008 model would be a safer bet in terms of having all initial design "issues" resolved.
The 2006 CR-V represents the best of the 2nd Generation CR-V. The 2007 will probably represent the "worst" of the 3rd generation (not that this would be a "bad" car - just not as good as the 2008 model). It is a personal choice as to which one is considered "better".
I agree with what you are saying. By purchasing a 2006 model at the end of the model year may mean it is already one year old but you also have to consider when it came off the line and the mileage that won't be on it. I also think that having a jump on the model year by six months does run you a risk, especially in an initial design year, but if I buy an 06 in 06 I really don't see all that many negatives compared to buying a new design model which has yet to be tweaked.
The thing to keep in mind is that when you buy that late in the model year you essentially have a one year old car and the depreciation that goes with it.
Yes Honda's hold their value but you still will lose something. Also, the '07 will be a new model. New features, new engineering ,etc. When you buy an '06 you are buying a six year old design. IIWM I'd at least wait to see what the '07 looks like. You can still probably find an '06 at that point if that's what you want.
I don't think it matters whether you buy a 2006 model in May of 2006 or September 2006. The depriciation is negligible in the long run (3 years). But, the discount and the incentives Honda will throw on the 2006 will be great, given that 2007 is a success. The price of a new 2006 with the discounts will be lower than the price of a used 2 year old CR-V, that is generally the rule.
The only problem I see is if you are picky with Colors and trims. The choices will be slim, since the production of 2006's will shut down sometime in June/July 2006, with last shipments to dealers in August.
I agree that buying a 2007 right off the truck is not something I would do. Even though Honda is better than others, they are still going to be bugs. I remember when 2002 was released, they were recalled for computer firmware upgrade about 1-2 weeks into the sales. Like someone mentioned the CD-storage was odd sized.
If you want to see what the resale on the 2006 will be in 5 years versus 2007, checkout the resale on 2001 compared to 2002. Please remember that the 2001 CR-V EX was selling under $18,500 when the 2002 CR-V's were released in October/November 2001, and 2002's were selling at around $20,500.
You make some good points too but I'll stick with my original advice.
Tweaks (that's really all they were) to the 2G CR-V may have improved the vehicle but unless you know something more than the masses the '06 is a six year old design.
I know you know that Honda bases designs on global platforms, shares parts across different models ,etc. So to me the '07 while certainly new would not be like they developed and built it the day before someone buys it.
Finally, the poster (I think) was asking about '06 vs. '07. You mention waiting for an '08.
You can always "wait" for the next model year or the next redesign, but at some point people need a vehicle, so they usually buy what's available.
But, the discount and the incentives Honda will throw on the 2006 will be great, given that 2007 is a success. The price of a new 2006 with the discounts will be lower than the price of a used 2 year old CR-V, that is generally the rule.
Pure speculation on your part.
Honda currently has $500 cash to dealer on the '06 CR-V. When have you known Honda to offer large incentives on it's vehicles?
I remember when 2002 was released, they were recalled for computer firmware upgrade about 1-2 weeks into the sales. Like someone mentioned the CD-storage was odd sized.
Really? I thought the only recall was related to the seat belts. The computer glitch was a TSB AFAIK.
The drawer in question was a storage drawer. The next year they enlarged it so it could hold a CD case. Seems like a great reason to wait a year to buy a vehicle .
"You make some good points too but I'll stick with my original advice. "
Well, that's the whole point - there are two sides to the issue, and both are completely valid. It depends upon the level of risk with which one is comfortable. The 2006 is a known and tested quantity; the 2007 is unknown but would logically be a more modern design.
Personally, I'm not sure which one I would choose...
The post mentioning a 2007 CR-V spyshot has seemed to disappear. It didn't link to anything but did mention another site, which seems to be taboo here. The spyshot was taken in Australia (courtesy of Wheels Mag. there) and for those of you who worship at the "temple", it's available there, if you know what I mean. It's also in another "forum" but I guess I can't mention that either, due to Edmund's apparent insecurities. (is autojamesbondbangs vague enough?)
I'm not sure about the reason for the removal since I didn't see the other post. I think we can publish the link to the image. We just can't post it as an image or link to the forum where it was introduced.
I'm pretty sure the photo is legit. However the specifications the magazine has published make little sense. They claim an increase in total length, but the current CR-V is longer than the number they provide. Then there's a few other little things which do not make sense. (Although that doesn't mean they aren't true.)
Some have noted that the rear quarter glass matches that gawd-awful photochop we saw a few weeks back. It does indeed. The C pillar is also too close for comfort. But there are also a few things (wheel arches, rocker panel, etc.) which do not match up with that photo. So, perhaps the "artist" did in fact see a pre-production vehicle, but things have been changed since he spied it.
I wonder if the length of the actual vehicle has increased, but because of the absence of the rear-mounted spare, the specs appear almost unchanged. Seems to me that for the new Rav4, the length spec included the rear-mounted spare, for example. Other things, like bumper regulations (or lack of them) can affect overall length by an inch or two as well. Rear 3/4 view reminds me a little of a jacked-up 5 door Focus. Not sure I like the hatch lid morphing into the rear bumper...a minor bumper ding may mean repairing the hatch as well. I do prefer a hatch to the side-swinger, though. Some other positives... looks like, despite the slight increase in size, they've tried to keep the weight down...I'm hoping the new CR-V will be a fuel economy champ. Also, sounds like a much nicer interior is in store as well. Can't wait for more info!
varmint - maybe the body is longer once you exclude the spare tire on the exterior of the current car. (someone beat me to it)
It does appear smaller, but that may because it's lower.
Two notable improvements, IMO, are the spare is no longer blocking the view, and the top-hinged tail gate would give you shelter from the rain.
I wonder if they managed to keep a full-size spare tire? That would be impressive. They say it's lighter, so maybe that's one thing that was sacrificed.
The rear bumper looks good, more integrated now. A dual-exhaust sure would dress up the rear view. SE model maybe? They kept the tall mounted side lights. I bet that lower white "tail light" is false.
I don't really like the thick D-pillar or the chrome around the greenhouse in the profile. Front fender reminds me of the BMW X3, not bad.
We should start seeing more of these soon.
I can't imagine they'll try to stick a 3rd row in that thing, so they detracted from the trend that Toyota, Hyundai, and Mistubishi started.
They're off by 100 mm. That's something like 4 inches. The spare tire never extended more than 1-2" from the rear bumper on the CR-V. Also, I'm told that it was never included in the measured length (they include the bracket, but not the tire itself).
98% of the tire was also below the window, so I never had a problem with it blocking the view. I did have plenty of flats.
According to Acura's press release for the RDX, the hatch panel which becomes part of the rear bumper is easily replaced. They designed it with the understanding that it could be damaged in a low-speed impact.
Could the Aussie models have had different front or rear bumpers, though, and therefore different lengths?
Who knows. Looks smaller to me, not longer.
In fact, if you look at the RDX in the same picture, they appear to be about the same size. Same height especially.
That'll be interesting to see because the RDX is not nearly as roomy as the current CR-V, especially in the back seat. It's more than adequate, but not limo-roomy like the current CR-V.
If it's accurate it's a very interesting design. Hard to know exactly what's going on but it looks to me like a very long hatchback maybe like a stretched Matrix/Vibe. It certainly does appear to be sitting much lower. It almost has a Murano look to it imo.
The thing that interests me the most is if this is really what the next CRV will look like, it's a dramatic change from the 2006. It will be exciting to see the consumer and reviewer reaction.
but can someone please quickly catch me up on the story with the oil changed related engine fires?
There used to be a thread devoted to be but that seems to be gone. I was up to speed on it while researching the 2005 CRV last year (bought an Accord instead) but don't know how it ended. I am possibly getting a 2006 later this year.
Our IT department is working on getting the archived folders back in place so hopefully it'll be searchable again soon. Something about hitting a database limit wound up taking some discussions off-line for a while.
Short version is that it ended when the faulty gaskets got replaced. Some of the regulars can expound.
There have been slight differences between Aussie and US models, but they typically include things like extra brake lights in the bumper or extra cladding up around the license plate area. Nothing that would significantly impact the overall length of the vehicle.
However!!!!
Your query prompted me to check the Honda of Oz website and I found something interesting. According to their specifications, the overall length of the CR-V is 4610mm for the base models (still more than that spy pic article claims) and the "sport" model (like our SE) is 4630. The only difference being the addition of the hard spare tire cover which adds a wee bit to the length.
So it looks like Aussies DO count the spare tire in their measurements, while our US specs do not.
But the point remains. The spy pic figure of 4,495 is still shorter than the current model. Even if we use Aussie measurements. (Oh, and the spy pic shows a banner on the back of each vehicle which reads, "Left hand drive". So, they were testing US spec vehicles.)
Based on what we know about the RDX and having seen this spy pic, this is what my fear is. Honda has created the 3rd generation RAV4.
The first and second generation RAVs were smallish, nimble, and efficient. The same can be said of the Forester. They both lost a whole lotta sales to the CR-V, Escape, and others largely because these vehicles offer more passenger space and more cargo space.
Well, the interior of the RDX is smaller than the current CR-V. That's okay since the RDX is supposed to be more sport oriented. But it seems to me this new CR-V is very close to the same design. Like a decontented RDX with new sheetmetal. IMO, a smaller CR-V is not the way to go. Even if it is sportier. The larger chunk of the market is in family-hauling utility.
So, at this point in time, it looks like Toyota has built the 3rd gen CR-V and Honda has built the new RAV4. I really hope that I'm wrong, but that's what I'm seeing.
If this is anywhere near correct, I think the design will be lacking. It will be more aerodynamic, but I expect the cargo capacity may be less, because of the sloping roof. One of the things I liked about my CR-V was that great cargo capacity.
Where is the spare? Do we lose the famous built-in under-cargo-floor ice chest (a.k.a wheel well)?
And the rear doors look shorter - there goes the 39" legroom???
I think the interior dimensions of the 3rd gen CR-V will be similar to the current model and the new RAV4. But if Honda doesn't offer a V6 engine option in the next CR-V, they will lose a LOT of sales to the RAV4. I love Honda VTEC 4's to death, but the V6 RAV4 is an absolute HOOT to drive. And even with 100 more HP than the current CR-V, its EPA numbers are within 1 mpg. This is a far different situation than the V6 Escape which is only slightly faster than the CR-V and gets much worse mileage, hence Honda could ignore it.
Hmmm... Maybe I should add a summary of the fires thing to the FAQ thread. I meant to do that once it had been resolved.
Okay, here we go. The MTV montage version of events.
Honda had a problem with a supplier who had changed their formula for the O-ring gaskets. Those gaskets made by the supplier didn't like humidity. When exposed to humidity, they swelled up and expanded as the vehicles were shipped across the oceans. That made them sticky. Sticky gaskets get stuck to the engine block. Techs were not properly checking to make sure they had removed the old gaskets when changing the oil. That resulted in double gasketing, which caused leaks, which lead to fires.
According to a rep from the NHTSA, only a significant (spraying all over the place) type of leak would lead to a fire. The whole letter from the rep is posted in that fires thread.
Honda had the supplier correct their formula and changed out all the oil filters which had the poofy gaskets. They contacted owners and told them to bring the cars in for service. Since then, we have not seen more than a few straggler incidents. Probably folks who did not get their oil changed when Honda instructed, or did not receive the letter Honda sent.
I understand why enthusiasts appreciate the RAV4's V6, but the number of enthusiasts in the small SUV market is pretty small. Otherwise, the Forester XT (0-60 in 5.8 seconds) would be mopping up the floor with everyone else.
Since when has the CR-V's success been the result of it offering a powerful engine? It's not about engines. This segment is a lot like minivans. It's about practicality.
Comments
Would this be a deal I couldn't pass up? How many miles are these expected to run?
As long as you keep repairing it, it will run forever.
2001 was the last year for that generation of the CR-V. Honda had 6 years to work the bugs out. So it *should* be a very reliable vehicle. The CR-V has been rated very highly in just about every publication which attempts to measure either quality or reliability. Having said that, there are no guarantees.
As for pricing, that depends very much on things like where you live, the color of the vehicle (gotta be silver, green, or one other color), and a host of other factors. Your best bet is to use Edmunds TMV as a guide.
I know that the 2007 CR-V will be released this year...
But after seeing the spy shot. I really do not like the redesign.
thanks..
denise :shades:
CR-V. Its just some old photo chop someone found. Honda seems to keep most details of their upcoming vehicles under wraps as long as they can. You might find some concrete pictures and details by the end of the summer at best.
I would think you might be able to get a good deal on an 06 right before the new ones comes out so maybe late September or October might be a good time. I would wait until your sure what the next generation looks like before buying though
I was thinking that I should wait too...
Honda is pretty secretive....
I have a 2003 CR-V now..but I'd like to trade it...
They made nice changes to the 2006 model
radio controls on steering wheel
16" tires
better headrests (for rear view)
Thanks again for the info!
Denise
No, not in the US or Canada. I don't think Canada got any 2WD models and the only 2WD in the US got an auto as standard equipment.
Best time to buy? Right when the new model comes out. The outgoing Civic could be had for a bargain price right before the 06 models came out, even the Civic hybrids were being discounted at Browns Honda (they post no-haggle internet prices).
-juice
It was raining at the time and the CR-V handled wonderfully. Once I regained my composure I thought "Cool!" By the way, when I later caught up with the idiot I saw that their left rear quarter-panel was already smashed in. I guess they thought they needed even more practice side-swiping people.
While I was raised on the every 3K mile oil and filter change by my Dad I have since kind of evolved into a 5K interval for my vehicles (even my 2001 Audi A4 that had 10K interval rec) with synthetic oil and a new filter at each change. I read many years ago the Consumer Reports test of NY taxis that showed basically no difference in engine wear for taxis with 3K and other, longer intervals and the introduction of synthetic oils kind of won me over to the longer interval.
So I am pondering changing the oil on my new CR-V at 5K and putting on a new filter as well. I will use synthetic oil and a Honda filter. Just wondering if anybody out there has any thoughts on whether this actually might be a bad thing and that I should just wait to the 10K mark.
Any comments (nice ones anyway!?!) would be appreciated.
TB
Never have I kept a car that even got close to 100K. But I've never had a Honda before, either! I've been really good about the scheduled maintenance (ouch $$), oil changes, etc.
My question is this -- how many miles does your CR-V have -and- honestly, how much farther do you think it can go?
I live along the Gulf Coast and after last year's hurricane evacuations, I need to be able to count on my car. I also owe another year's worth of payments, too.
Thanks for your responses!
Yes Honda's hold their value but you still will lose something. Also, the '07 will be a new model. New features, new engineering ,etc. When you buy an '06 you are buying a six year old design. IIWM I'd at least wait to see what the '07 looks like. You can still probably find an '06 at that point if that's what you want.
Yes Honda's hold their value but you still will lose something. Also, the '07 will be a new model. New features, new engineering ,etc. When you buy an '06 you are buying a six year old design. IIWM I'd at least wait to see what the '07 looks like. You can still probably find an '06 at that point if that's what you want."
Your point is good, but there are contrary factors here. For one thing, the 2006 CR-V is not the same vehicle as the 2002 CR-V; it has standard stability control, air bags, etc., as well as numerous small improvements like audio on the steering wheel and passenger side door locks.
For another thing, the first year of any automobile is something of a gamble. The 2002 CR-V, for example, had that marvelous center storage compartment below the radio - that was 1 inch too small to hold a standard size CD. I wouldn't worry about quality with a Honda, but there will be teething pains. The 2008 model would be a safer bet in terms of having all initial design "issues" resolved.
The 2006 CR-V represents the best of the 2nd Generation CR-V. The 2007 will probably represent the "worst" of the 3rd generation (not that this would be a "bad" car - just not as good as the 2008 model). It is a personal choice as to which one is considered "better".
Yes Honda's hold their value but you still will lose something. Also, the '07 will be a new model. New features, new engineering ,etc. When you buy an '06 you are buying a six year old design. IIWM I'd at least wait to see what the '07 looks like. You can still probably find an '06 at that point if that's what you want.
I don't think it matters whether you buy a 2006 model in May of 2006 or September 2006. The depriciation is negligible in the long run (3 years). But, the discount and the incentives Honda will throw on the 2006 will be great, given that 2007 is a success. The price of a new 2006 with the discounts will be lower than the price of a used 2 year old CR-V, that is generally the rule.
The only problem I see is if you are picky with Colors and trims. The choices will be slim, since the production of 2006's will shut down sometime in June/July 2006, with last shipments to dealers in August.
I agree that buying a 2007 right off the truck is not something I would do. Even though Honda is better than others, they are still going to be bugs. I remember when 2002 was released, they were recalled for computer firmware upgrade about 1-2 weeks into the sales. Like someone mentioned the CD-storage was odd sized.
If you want to see what the resale on the 2006 will be in 5 years versus 2007, checkout the resale on 2001 compared to 2002. Please remember that the 2001 CR-V EX was selling under $18,500 when the 2002 CR-V's were released in October/November 2001, and 2002's were selling at around $20,500.
Tweaks (that's really all they were) to the 2G CR-V may have improved the vehicle but unless you know something more than the masses the '06 is a six year old design.
I know you know that Honda bases designs on global platforms, shares parts across different models ,etc. So to me the '07 while certainly new would not be like they developed and built it the day before someone buys it.
Finally, the poster (I think) was asking about '06 vs. '07. You mention waiting for an '08.
You can always "wait" for the next model year or the next redesign, but at some point people need a vehicle, so they usually buy what's available.
Pure speculation on your part.
Honda currently has $500 cash to dealer on the '06 CR-V. When have you known Honda to offer large incentives on it's vehicles?
I remember when 2002 was released, they were recalled for computer firmware upgrade about 1-2 weeks into the sales. Like someone mentioned the CD-storage was odd sized.
Really? I thought the only recall was related to the seat belts. The computer glitch was a TSB AFAIK.
The drawer in question was a storage drawer. The next year they enlarged it so it could hold a CD case. Seems like a great reason to wait a year to buy a vehicle
Well, that's the whole point - there are two sides to the issue, and both are completely valid. It depends upon the level of risk with which one is comfortable. The 2006 is a known and tested quantity; the 2007 is unknown but would logically be a more modern design.
Personally, I'm not sure which one I would choose...
CR-V Scoop
If not, I'm sure this post won't last long, either. :P
I'm pretty sure the photo is legit. However the specifications the magazine has published make little sense. They claim an increase in total length, but the current CR-V is longer than the number they provide. Then there's a few other little things which do not make sense. (Although that doesn't mean they aren't true.)
Some have noted that the rear quarter glass matches that gawd-awful photochop we saw a few weeks back. It does indeed. The C pillar is also too close for comfort. But there are also a few things (wheel arches, rocker panel, etc.) which do not match up with that photo. So, perhaps the "artist" did in fact see a pre-production vehicle, but things have been changed since he spied it.
Wonder if it'll come with run-flats? :shades:
Thanks for finding the source pic Varmint.
Steve, Host
It does appear smaller, but that may because it's lower.
Two notable improvements, IMO, are the spare is no longer blocking the view, and the top-hinged tail gate would give you shelter from the rain.
I wonder if they managed to keep a full-size spare tire? That would be impressive. They say it's lighter, so maybe that's one thing that was sacrificed.
The rear bumper looks good, more integrated now. A dual-exhaust sure would dress up the rear view. SE model maybe? They kept the tall mounted side lights. I bet that lower white "tail light" is false.
I don't really like the thick D-pillar or the chrome around the greenhouse in the profile. Front fender reminds me of the BMW X3, not bad.
We should start seeing more of these soon.
I can't imagine they'll try to stick a 3rd row in that thing, so they detracted from the trend that Toyota, Hyundai, and Mistubishi started.
-juice
98% of the tire was also below the window, so I never had a problem with it blocking the view. I did have plenty of flats.
According to Acura's press release for the RDX, the hatch panel which becomes part of the rear bumper is easily replaced. They designed it with the understanding that it could be damaged in a low-speed impact.
Who knows. Looks smaller to me, not longer.
In fact, if you look at the RDX in the same picture, they appear to be about the same size. Same height especially.
That'll be interesting to see because the RDX is not nearly as roomy as the current CR-V, especially in the back seat. It's more than adequate, but not limo-roomy like the current CR-V.
-juice
The thing that interests me the most is if this is really what the next CRV will look like, it's a dramatic change from the 2006. It will be exciting to see the consumer and reviewer reaction.
There used to be a thread devoted to be but that seems to be gone. I was up to speed on it while researching the 2005 CRV last year (bought an Accord instead) but don't know how it ended. I am possibly getting a 2006 later this year.
Thank you very much for your help!
Paul
Short version is that it ended when the faulty gaskets got replaced. Some of the regulars can expound.
Steve, Host
The funny thing about that camoflage is that they made it sort of look like the new Passat wagon in the green house area.
-juice
However!!!!
Your query prompted me to check the Honda of Oz website and I found something interesting. According to their specifications, the overall length of the CR-V is 4610mm for the base models (still more than that spy pic article claims) and the "sport" model (like our SE) is 4630. The only difference being the addition of the hard spare tire cover which adds a wee bit to the length.
So it looks like Aussies DO count the spare tire in their measurements, while our US specs do not.
But the point remains. The spy pic figure of 4,495 is still shorter than the current model. Even if we use Aussie measurements. (Oh, and the spy pic shows a banner on the back of each vehicle which reads, "Left hand drive". So, they were testing US spec vehicles.)
The first and second generation RAVs were smallish, nimble, and efficient. The same can be said of the Forester. They both lost a whole lotta sales to the CR-V, Escape, and others largely because these vehicles offer more passenger space and more cargo space.
Well, the interior of the RDX is smaller than the current CR-V. That's okay since the RDX is supposed to be more sport oriented. But it seems to me this new CR-V is very close to the same design. Like a decontented RDX with new sheetmetal. IMO, a smaller CR-V is not the way to go. Even if it is sportier. The larger chunk of the market is in family-hauling utility.
So, at this point in time, it looks like Toyota has built the 3rd gen CR-V and Honda has built the new RAV4. I really hope that I'm wrong, but that's what I'm seeing.
Where is the spare? Do we lose the famous built-in under-cargo-floor ice chest (a.k.a wheel well)?
And the rear doors look shorter - there goes the 39" legroom???
Okay, here we go. The MTV montage version of events.
Honda had a problem with a supplier who had changed their formula for the O-ring gaskets. Those gaskets made by the supplier didn't like humidity. When exposed to humidity, they swelled up and expanded as the vehicles were shipped across the oceans. That made them sticky. Sticky gaskets get stuck to the engine block. Techs were not properly checking to make sure they had removed the old gaskets when changing the oil. That resulted in double gasketing, which caused leaks, which lead to fires.
According to a rep from the NHTSA, only a significant (spraying all over the place) type of leak would lead to a fire. The whole letter from the rep is posted in that fires thread.
Honda had the supplier correct their formula and changed out all the oil filters which had the poofy gaskets. They contacted owners and told them to bring the cars in for service. Since then, we have not seen more than a few straggler incidents. Probably folks who did not get their oil changed when Honda instructed, or did not receive the letter Honda sent.
I think that about does it.
Since when has the CR-V's success been the result of it offering a powerful engine? It's not about engines. This segment is a lot like minivans. It's about practicality.