Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Well many folks were concerned about the current CRV being made in the UK for the US market. AFAIK, quality has not been an issue.
Honda has been manufacturing vehicles in the US for over 25 years. IMHO, there is little difference in quality because Honda has a standardized manufacturing system. They could put a plant almost anywhere in the world and turn out the same level of quality.
Do not go to a dealer. this oil is readily available.
Any quick service oil change place will charge you 25 to 30 bucks for this service.
Besides, maybe Honda gold-plated the dash and is going to sell the vehicles for under $20K.
Anyway, wait and see what they offer and also what the competition is doing before you make a decision about trading. At this point in time, the new RAV4 does look like the best vehicle for fans of the older CR-Vs.
The nationality of the workers at the plant has far less to do with reliability than the training they receive and the experience of the staff there. The plants in the US have been in operation long enough that I would not be worried about them.
Doubtful. At least, not significantly. We might see 22-28 mpg.
"It appears much more aerodynamic although on VTEC they mention the weight goes up some."
Not really. Aerodynamics is are not something which can be seen. The current CR-V has a drag of .34 while the much more aerodynamic-looking CX-7 has a drag of .35 Co.
New pictures of the 07. I like it.
http://www.worldcarfans.com/spyphotos.cfm/country/jcf/spyphotoID/6060612.002/hon- da/more-2007-honda-cr-v-spy-photos
I note the commentary says the new CR-V will be built on the same platform as the Acura RDX, which I've read is the TL. I've also seen comments that the CR-V will be built on the new Civic platform.
Anyone know which is correct?
'tinfoil' grill. One thing I failed to mention in my comments on the Rav4....it's not particularily stylish. Kinda plain in person and doesn't really look worth the change they're charging for it. Back to the CR-V...
As the RD-X it's based on is virtually the same size as BMW's X3, it may not seem that much smaller than the current CR-V....and should be around 180" in length.
The X3 manages to carve out 70 cu ft. or so of cargo room, so even though the RD-X is listed at around 60, maybe the CR-V, through more efficient packaging/different roofline etc. can eke out around 70 cu.ft. too. Ground clearance from the photos doesn't look all that compromised, so as varmint says, lets wait for the final specs. I'm still kinda hoping for a third row, even though all reports say the CR-V will remain a 5 seater. If the Rav4/Mazda5/Kia Carens etc. can all get third rows in their vehicles, all of which are about 180" in length, give or take an inch, then there's no reason why Honda can't. And if they have some fuel economy magic up their sleeve as well, that certainly wouldn't hurt.
Because of cargo space only? That seems to be your biggest gripe with the new CR-V (which isn't even out yet).
So which RAV4 is it? The $30K V6 or the $21K 4 cylinder stripper model?
Anyway, they peg max cargo capacity at a measly 61 cu.ft. I've seen how the RDX seats fold (and the parts of the bench which cannot be folded). And those seats look like they were taken from a less expensive vehicle then covered with leather. I've also taken measurements of the RDX's cargo bay. Combine that with the sloped roof-line we see in the photos and I think 61 cu.ft. is unfortunately correct.
There are a number of small SUVs with good cargo capacity (Escape, CR-V, Element, VUE, and Equinox).
Pretty much all of them offer safe, stable handling.
Several do well in crash tests and offer a good list of safety features.
Some offer good performance.
Some offer good fuel economy.
The CR-V was the only one which scored at the top of the heap in pretty much all categories. It was well-balanced. Nowadays, when I look at vehicles on the small SUV market, the new RAV4 is the one at the top of all the lists. The new CR-V does not look like it will be as balanced as the first two generations.
To answer your question, I'd recommend a mid level RAV4 with the I4 to most buyers. While Toyota's nickle-n-dime approach to features can be maddening, it is possible to find a middle ground between loaded and stripped.
But these days my favorites are filled up with alt fuel folders and the low 30 mpgs range doesn't sound as good as it used to.
Who knows, in a year or two it just may be the Fit Hybrid that I'll end up with. An affordable hybrid at last, or at least in theory.
Your market must be an anomoly. SE's can be had here for $22K.
Given the new CR-V's apparent shrinkage, you'd think it would be even lighter. Also of note...the RDX's mileage doesn't even come close to the Rav4's V6, let alone the 4.
As for the spy pics, seems like there is a lot less glass overall, especially around the D-pillar. That's an unfortunate trend that has caught on with the entire industry. Chopped cars are in, but it's harder to see out of them!
Front headlights on that one look like the last generation Civic to me. They hid the underbite. Still no clear, full pics.
-juice
So they should spend about $25k for a RAV4 (try and find a RAV4 for $21k) vs. less for a CR-V for a few cubic feet of storage space?? I think you underestimate the value of a few cubic feet of storage in this segment. It's not like the CR-V is a Mini with no place to put a suitcase.
To paraphrase one of our favorite people, you are all over the 'net saying how the new CR-V will flop (I know this market segment. This new CR-V reminds me of the old RAV4 and the Forester. Both have failed to lead the segment. Unless we are grossly misinformed about it, this CR-V will flop. .), huge loss in sales, etc. Sure hope you are right, as your rep as the CR-V expert is on the line
1) Is that accurate?
2) Where the heck can you buy 5W20 (the dealer priced me out their oil and filter and it would be nearly $35/oil change just for the supplies!). And can you easily buy a filter from someplace besides honda?
3) Does 5W20 really wear out your engine sooner?
Last question - are people seeing good MPG with low-grade gasoline or do you need to use mid- or premium?
Thanks!
Never had a problem finding 5W-20, not every brand has it, only the top quality producers have it. So, there is no cheapo brand of 5W-20, but Exxon (superflo) Mobil, Mobil 1, Motorcraft (Ford), Penzoil, Quaker, Castrol all have 5W-20.
I use Mobil 1 0W-20 for better winter start up protection, and Honda OEM filter.
You only need to use regular gas in it. It is not designed to take advantage of the higher octane (low compression engine).
No manual in any RAV4's. No manual = no sale for me.
For the record, this new CR-V is about the same length, but appears to be a good 2-3" wider. That could explain some of the weight. Though it is also rumored to be shorter.
But you're mistaken about cargo space being my only reason for forecasting flop status for the new CR-V. It's also ugly.
Right now, price is the best reason I have for recommending the current CR-V over the RAV4. If buyers cannot afford the RAV4, the CR-V is a strong alternative.
I used to be able to say it offered the best total package.
With the new CR-V looking smaller on the inside, heavier, and uglier, I cannot claim that it is a good overall package. And I see no reason to suspect the price will drop.
I'm sure this new model will have improved safety, improved handling, and an improved interior. But if somebody comes to me asking for a smaller SUV with good handling, safety, and a nice interior, I'd probably direct them to the Subaru Forester.
I got my rep as the CR-V expert by learning an awful lot about the vehicle. I know enough to recognize one of these :lemon: when I see it.
New Cr-V does show some promise, but I'll need to check out that 'face' and I'm not holding my breath for a third row. Current Stream is just over 179" (will we get the new Stream/Latitude?), so a third row is possible. As long as they do it like the Rav4 and give you a choice (I know there are those who hate 3rd rows)
Aren't looks subjective? As I said before, find the posts when the 2G was about to debut. I know "ugly" was used. Didn't seem to hurt it's sales.
With the new CR-V looking smaller on the inside, heavier, and uglier, I cannot claim that it is a good overall package.
With every redesign of the Civic and Accord and CR-V they added more interior volume, not less. The 3G CR-V may look "smaller" to you, but I doubt it will be.
I'm sure this new model will have improved safety, improved handling, and an improved interior. But if somebody comes to me asking for a smaller SUV with good handling, safety, and a nice interior, I'd probably direct them to the Subaru Forester.
Except for a potentially smaller cargo capacity it does seem that for you it all comes down to the fact that you think the new CR-V is "ugly". Looks are subjective, but I assume you have seen a Forester. And what about the Soob's ride height? Not SUV like.
I got my rep as the CR-V expert by learning an awful lot about the vehicle. I know enough to recognize one of these :lemon: when I see it.
Pretty strong statement. Don't recall a real Honda flop for many years in the US. We shall see but I think you will be wrong and have to forfeit your "CR-V expert" tag
I think that photo does look better, but only because the vehicle is back lit. Tricks of the camera hide the nasty little details.
Comparable? Your RAV4 doesn't have AWD. Apples to oranges.
Any quick service oil change place will charge you 25 to 30 bucks for this service."
My dealer charges $29.
I'm basing my statements about the CR-V being smaller on the fact that it shares a platform with the RDX, specs have been rumored (61 cu.ft.), and the photos match up with both the rumors and the RDX.
Looks and lack of interior space are enough to kill a vehicle.
The last gen RAV4 was a good vehicle. It was sporty. It was stylish enough. It was reliable and made from high quality materials. It was safe. It had a good AWD system. But it stayed a second tier player largely because it was too small.
The Forester is another example. Though, on top of being considered small, it wasn't very attractive.
As for the Subaru's ride height, yes, it isn't very SUV-like. And that was another problem for some buyers. Some of the appeal of SUVs is the higher seating position and improved visibility. I don't see that being a problem for the CR-V. But there are plenty of vehicles in this segment with good visibility. You need more than that to succeed.
If you can't recall Honda designing a flop, look no further than the last generation Civic Si or the new Acura RL.
It is possible that Honda has some brilliant feature hidden under the sheetmetal of that CR-V. But it's going to have to be one fantastic, ground-breaking, "OMG this is huge" feature to make up for the looks and apparent lack of cargo space.
Because I chose it that way. I did not want AWD. Comparable in terms of options such as side and curtain airbags, moon roof, etc. And comparable in terms of size. I could have lived with either one really, but I got a good deal on the RAV4, and I prefer the interior. Did not like the plastic folding table between front seats. Did not like the emergency break and shift location. Other than that both were fine.
The new CR-V may be marginally smaller than the outgoing model, but it does seem to have a very short hood and front overhang, so maybe cabin space has been maintained.
I do agree that it probably needs some surprise & delight features to give it an edge.
I haven't seen anything official, but we may have a recall coming for a few 1997 CR-Vs.
That bump we all just felt was the earth stopping!!
No manual for the 2007 CR-V, either.
Though, I may have to amend that earlier statement. It's possible the new CR-V could have the same cargo space as the Forester and and still trump it by having a better rear bench. It's difficult to say. The Forester has gotten a little bigger in the back, and (based on sitting in the RDX) the rear seat isn't too small.
I may end up recommending the RAV4 to most buyers and the new CR-V to those who want the smaller, more nimble package. We'll see.
The 4-8% of the car buying public in the US who drive a manual transmission are going to be soooo disappointed. Long live the "drones"
38"rear door height opng. 44.5"wide.
Easy 8' long with front seat folded
Back window flips up for longer items.
Now give me the RDX dim's
Thank's
Length 174.02-178.74*/181.00/180.70 / 181
Width 70.28 / 70.2 / 73.6 / 71.5
Height 67.32 / 66.2 / 65.2 /66.1
WB 103.15 /103.3 /104.3 / 105
CW ? /3318-3494/3968-3982
Note that the length of the JDM CRV bumper to bumper is 174.02 and bumper to spare tire mounting bracket is 178.74. It's possible that the NAM CRV is either measured bumper to spare tire or our bumpers themselves are larger than the JDM bumpers, accounting for the disparity in lengths. Anyway, what it boils down to is that the RDX is, bumper to bumper, about 6" longer than the JDM CRV, over 3" wider and only an inch less in height (which may have more to do with ground clearance than actual body height. So the next gen CRV, based on the RDX, is, for all intents and purposes, slightly larger than the outgoing model. Note that Honda didn't appreciably increase the size of the new Odyssey, but managed to carve out additional interior space. Hopefully the same will be true with the CRV. Looks can be deceptive. It should be virtually the same length as the RAV4 (maybe longer, if the spare on the RAV figures into it's length calculation), it's 2" wider and only an inch less tall (that ground clearance thing again). So I expect the new CRV to equall or surpass the RAV in interior space. (Also, no reason why it can't have a 3rd row like the RAV)
Here's a few new 07 pictures which came out today.
http://www.worldcarfans.com/spyphotos.cfm/country/jcf/spyphotoID/6060615.008/hon- da/more-honda-cr-v-spy-photos-us-spec
60" from the interior edge of the hatch to the bottom of the folded up seat cushion (which rests against the front seatback).
35" from the interior edge to the back of the second row (back seats upright).
49" maximum width (measured aft of the wheel wells). Above the wheel well, the RDX has a "shelf system" which gets in the way.
41.5" between the wheelwells. (This is the one dimension which should be larger than the current CR-V.)
32" max height (measured near the back of the cargo space, but not the door opening).
I took these measurements while fighting the crowds at the NY Auto Show, so they may not be exact. For example, I was not able to measure the length of the cargo space with the hatch closed and had to estimate where it would fall on the cargo floor.
On a spec sheet, both the X3 and CX-7 have more ground clearance than the RDX (by 2-3 inches). They measure from the floor to the differential. However, when I put a tape measure under the chassis (below a rear door), I found that the RDX had more clearance than the other two. By approximately 2 inches. It "seems" the body rides high, but the differential rides low.