I've not been around for a while, but just wanted to drop a little testimony for those considering a purchase of a CRV as to owner satisfaction.
I've had my CRV SE for almost 1 year (Aug) and I still love it as much today as the day I drove it home. I've had absolutely NO PROBLEMS whatsoever with anything. I have a little over 12,000 miles now and its as good as its ever been.
Living in Ohio I really loved the way it handled during the snow season and the anti lock brakes kicked in twice since I've owned it and did there job perfectly!
I did extensive research on this site before my purchase and just wanted to contribute something back for others looking for positive information regarding the CRV.
I've read a lot of road tests on both the CRV and various Subaru models. I'm sorry, but I don't recall a "direct" comparison between the two vehicles, or specifically comparing their their drivetrains to one another. I've seen comparison tests between a number of mini-suvs, but none, that I can recall, that compare these two directly against one another.
My comments are based on being the owner of two Subarus, and just on plain common sense, or logic, if you will.
IMO, it just stands to reason that if you have an AWD system, such as Subaru's, whereby the portion of power that is sent to various wheels, is constantly changing to maximize the the best traction—to me, that's the best system.
Now, the driver may never notice the difference. And, as you say under normal driving conditions, it may make little or no difference. However, when push-comes-to-shove (challenging, and slippery road conditions), it may(?) make a very big difference.
I just think the Subaru AWD system adds an extra degree of insurance.
As a side note, you may have noticed the new TV commercials Subaru is running on their new performance-oriented WRX. With this model Subaru is pushing AWD as a "performance" item, not just a foul-weather item. The WRX has pretty much proven that AWD can greatly enhance roadholding and traction under the most challenging racing and high-speed driving types of endeavors. Again the AWD is always in effect, and always searching for the right wheels to send the power to. Now this may be of little interest to your average CRV customer, but it really illustrates what I've been trying to say.
Bob, I think that what you are saying is that theoretically, the Subaru sytem is better (I can agree with that), but in actuality, there is no real life difference. I think in response to the question form Pret (that started this discussion)(s)he would notice NO difference between the two based on available evidence.
Thanks guys. (llofgren, rsholland, tamila) That exactly what I was looking for - assurance of realtime 4WD working well under moderate snow and ice conditions.. Thats the only max. 'offroad' driving I would be doing - going up ski resorts & passes.. By the sounds of it, CR-V is a champ. Im going for it! Thanks again.
Pret, I think you are making a very good decision on the CRV. In addition to what I have already mentioned, it has the highest reliabilty rating of any SUV according to Consumer Reports (almost 80% better than average reliabilty). In fact, I think it has the highest reliabilty of ANY vehicle....period. It has a great ride and is very manuverable...and very economical to buy and run. Now is a great time to buy one because they are getting ready for the new model year.....you should be able to get invoice pricing or close to it (if you are buying new). I have heard that the auto transmission runs a little quieter because it is geared different than the manual tranny. If you are looking to carry your snowboard on top, you might want to see what Yakima and Thule (web sites) have available for the CRV to see if you want to get yours with a factory roof rack or not. Did I mention the high re-sale value???? I could go on and on........
For most of your driving, it probably won't make much difference. I still think in very difficult situations, the Subaru system will have an edge.
Re; roof rack For snowboards and the like the CRV roof rack will be okay. Be advised, however, the roof rack is only rated for 75 pounds, which is among the lowest in the industry.
For what it's worth, I would wait for the '02 model. It will be an all-new model, with much more power. Even though you may get some tempting prices on an '01 model, after the new model debuts, you may regret not having waited. Or, at least wait until the '02 model shows itself, then make your decision on a '01 leftover, or the new '02 model.
Bob, The only problem with the Subaru AWD drive system maybe being better under extreme conditions.....but again, no evidence to back that up....is that there are more parts, gadgets and gizmos, all suscepitble to failure. Its probably little wonder that the Subaru's reliability is significantly below that of the CRV. I can't imagine any snow related item for the roof rack being more than 75 lbs! Unless you are going to carry TWO canoes....weight equals 80 lbs....you will be just fine. What is the point of slamming a spec ("the roof rack capacity of 75 lbs is among the lowest") if it doesn't mean a thing eal life???? There are advantages of not waiting for the new '02 model: you get a known quantity ('01 model) that has been tested and refined since its introduction. Price is going to be outstanding. If you wait until the new ones come out, you may find that they are not quite what you wanted....and in the meantime the choice among the (remaining) '01's is alot less. BTW, there has been NO offical word or even semi-reliable rumors as to what the '02's will bring. My $.02
Re: Subaru reliability I have yet run into a Subaru owner who is unhappy with their vehicle. In fact, most Subaru owners I've spoken to are repeat buyers. To me that says volumes about their reliability. And... nowhere—ever—have I heard of a Subaru AWD system failing. So much for your gadgets & gizmo theory...
Finally, I invite you to visit the Subaru forums here at Edmunds if you doubt me. I'm sure they would very interested in your CRV vs. Forester (or any Subaru) opinions.
Re: roof racks What slam? It's a fact.
The CRV and I believe the the RX300 have the lowest roof rack rating in the industry at 75 pounds. Most cars and many SUVs have roof rack ratings of 100 pounds. The Jeep Liberty, Grand Cherokee and Subaru Foresters have roof rack ratings of 150 pounds. In fact all the CRV competitors have roof rack ratings of 100 pounds or more. Don't believe me? Just visit some of the CRV's competitor dealers. They all have stickers on the roof racks stating those figures.
Re: '01 vs. '02 CRVs If you re-read my post, I suggested waiting until the '02 models come out before making your decision. The '02 models will be all-new, and most likely be better than the current model. That way you will be making an "informed" decision that you won't regret.
Lastly, this is a CRV discussion area, not just a CRV "Fan Club." This means both positive and negative issues regarding the CRV are brought to light. Get used to it.
I've never owned an SUV but am about this close (note fingers only a millimeter or so apart)to purchasing a 2001 CR-V. Based on reading the messages from you fine CR-V owners, it seems the only two real isses (apparently related) are the lack of a larger engine and the noise (engine noise?) in highway driving. I also understand that rumors abound (although there are no hard facts) that the power issue will be addressed with the 2002s. I like what I see in the CR-Vs and would mostly drive it around town and on short trips, but I don't want to get a vehicle that I'd be uncomfortable taking on a longer road trip if I decided I wanted to take it. My question: how bad are the power and noise problems? Is it worth waiting to see what the 2002s are like? If I do wait, is it likely that there will be supply problems such that it will be tough to get a vehicle before, say, November or December? And what about the "bugs" issue? If the 2002 is a revamped model, should I expect a fair number of bugs that might not be present in the tried and true 2001?
Bob....I think you confuse "being testy" with my stating facts which don't jive with Subaru groupies:) Sorry to offend you! With regards to reliability, lets stick with FACTS (see the latest Consumer Reports 2001 car issue that shows Subaru SUV reliability way below the CRV) and NOT anecdotal reports ("my Aunt Bessie never had a problem with her Jeep Grand Cherokee"). I am a Subaru owner who will NOT be a repeat buyer. No particular grudge...I just think there are way more value oriented vehicles (Toyota and Honda)out there. With regards to roof racks, here is the thing: In real life, will Pret or 99.9% of any others NEED more than 75 lbs??? So whats the difference? You can always come out with some feature of a car where it is just average....but does that make a difference in the real world? On the '02's: Nothing wrong with waiting for the 02's....except if you see want you want now....its a great time. Its like anything, there will always be something bigger and better to come along....and then the price and selection MAY not be there on the '01's. One final comment on the Subaru AWD system. I have seen alot on all the boards here about VSC (vehicle skid control) and other "smart" sytems that recognize wheel spin and apply ABS to the wheel losing traction and route power to the "good" wheel, etc. Here is my spin (pun intended!): UNTIL, I hear from reputable, independent sources that such a system really is significantly superior to plain ol' AWD (or in Honda's case RT 4WD), I consider it marketing hype. Please don't automatically believe everything that Madison Avenue feeds you....... It was clear to me the very first time I drove an AWD/RT 4WD system, that it was a significant step forward. Clearly head and shoulders above everything else. Can't say the same about the newer systems that employ VSC and the like. I don't see that they are any better than plain ol' AWD/RT 4WD. Yes, this board is for ALL viewpoints, but there (also) IS a separate discussion board on CRV vs Forester....why don't you try that? Are the Honda folks over at the Subaru boards pointing out all the shortcomings? The fact that you are here says something about.......
I think the biggest problem with the CR-V is the aesthetics. It just looks like a box on wheels. And the wheels just don't look beefy enough. They need to upgrade to 16 inchers. and the tail lights look sort of like christmas lights.
A few years ago there was a Popular Science article that compared the CR-V, the Forester, and a few other small SUVs on a a dry, as well as a snow covered track. They did mention that in their handling tests, the CR-V did not do as well as the Forester because the CR-V's part-time torque-on-demand AWD system was cutting in only when there was slippage, and hence upsetting the balance of the vehicle, especially in the slalom runs.
What was happening was that in turns on their track, the CR-V's front end would lose traction resulting in major understeer. This mean loss of steering response and basically no way to control the attitude of the vehicle with the throttle since the vehicle would just plow to the outside of a corner a FWD car would. The lost of front wheel traction would prompt power to be transfered to the rear wheels. However, the sudden gain in rear wheel traction would then cause the vehicle to oversteer (tail end steps out) and upset the balance in the slalom runs. On dry pavement, the system also brought understeer, "with body roll allowing air to appear under the inside rear wheel in the slalom".
With the Subaru Forester, they reported that "power distribution with this (full-time AWD) system is excellent...with the vehicle nearly neutral under power".
I think you're getting four wheel traction control systems and stability control systems confused. Four wheel traction control simulates locking differentials on both axles, allowing the vehicle to move even if only one wheel has traction (within limits, of course). This system works so well that even Land Rover has employed it on all of their flagship Range Rover SUV. The Hummer has it as well.
Stability control, which doesn't need four driven wheels to work, senses when the vehicle is not going in the line that the driver intends, and corrects understeer or oversteer before a skid happens. Here's a video clip that will explain things very clearly, with some interesting video footage of the system in action: http://www.theautochannel.com/media/netshow/misc/esp-consumer-video.asx
Drew Host Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Well when I first saw the first promo shots of the CR-V back in 96' I fell in love, it was the yellow one in the field, I still have it I think. Well I wasn't ready to buy a car yet then, but now I am. Then when I start my research I hear all this drama about changing the shape. The plot thickens. Should I get the current model which I wanted since 96 or should I wait for the new improved model, any advice?
Also anyone have any suggestions on some reputable dealers in this state, I live in Silver Springs. I think the CR-V is already priced pretty low, but I don't want to get taken to the cleaners if you know what I mean, I'm not going tob break my neck for 500 bucks. So any help in MD would be greatly appreciated.
Also any new info on the new design, any current pics so on so on.
Thanks for your reference re:RT 4WD vs AWD. I had not heard of that head to head comparison before. While I don't consider Popular Science to be an authority on cars, it sounds like it addresses what we're talking about here. Do you know when (date or issue) the comparison was done? I would like to read it.......do you know of any others? Yes, I know about the traction control and skid control differnces....that they are two separate systems. I think thats great that Range Rover and Hummer use traction control....as does Toyota now on the 4 Runner. I just want to see some independent confirmation that this system (and skid control) DO make a difference:)
i have only driven a subaru a few years ago, it was an old shape legacy. it was way underpowered and i decided to go with a different make at the time. but the only reson i would never get anywhere close to any subaru car, is because that almost every subaru i see on the street that is 4 years or older makes that ta-ta-ta-ta noise. i know that subaru builds airplane engines, and that is what a 4 year old subaru sounds like. i do not know whether the exhaust manifold wears out in 4 years. but next time you see a subaru on the street listen and if it is over 4 years old you will hear the ta-ta-ta-ta-ta noise. my 2 cents :-)
"I think the biggest problem with the CR-V is the aesthetics. It just looks like a box on wheels. And the wheels just don't look beefy enough. They need to upgrade to 16 inchers. and the tail lights look sort of like christmas lights."
Actually, keep the 15 inch wheels, and just go with bigger tires. That is what will get taken more seriously. Of course, you then need more power to move the bigger tires. Oh yeah, they are coming out with a new model. Hopefully this addresses these two issues.
As far as aesthetics, I was considering a CRV, but my wife ruled it out immediately as looking too wussy.
I then went through a wide range of choices: Ranger pickup, XTerra, Cherokee, Trooper, Sportage, S10 Blazer, Toyota pickup, 4Runner, Explorer, and finally got ... ... ... ... a 1997 Jeep Wrangler Sport!
I am SO happy with my choice. I put 31 " tires on it, and am mounting a trailer hitch. It holds the dog, and the camping gear, and will tow the boat. It will also tackle offroad chores with aplomb (tried it a little already). I plan on adding a receiver rack/shelf and spare tire bike rack.
This thing is the standard to which all others must aspire. I wish I had the money for a 2001 Wrangler with hard top, but maybe I can trade next year...
If only Honda made a 4X4 convertible with some power.... (sigh)
I don't have the energy to document everything I say to meet your satisfaction.
Let me say this: I have owned some sort of a Honda product ever since 1965. That's over 36 years of experience with Honda products. I don't need you to educate me as to how good Hondas are. My daughter has a Prelude and I have Honda lawn mower. My long experience with Honda is one reason I lurk over here. The other reason is that the new CRV is just around the corner, and I'm seeking info on that model when it becomes available, which could be any day now.
Before we bought our Forester, I drove many a CRV. Compared to the Forester, the CRV is underpowered, not as comfortable as the Forester on long trips, and doesn't have the "content" features that our Forester has. As far as I can see, the only advantage the CRV has over the Forester is that it is larger and roomier. So for us, and many other happy Forester owners, it was the right choice.
My son's '86 Impreza Outback has over 80,000 miles on it without anything breaking. Our '01 Forester has 14,000 miles on it without anything breaking. I'd say that's a pretty good track record, in anybody's book.
I think Drew has stated your point very well with references to back it up. What I think is better than anectodal reports about one vehicle or make are facts, figures, and reviews by authoritative sources. (I have a '92 Sub AWD) As far as personal choices, I think the CRV is much more comfortable. I DO agree that the power is not as great (as the Sub) but its great for most people. For many people (more than the Forester), the CRV was the best choice. I don't think your experience with Honda lawnmowers is relevant here! You mentioned you have an '86 Impreza??? Was that a typo? I didn't think they made the Impreza that far back..... I am also interested in the '02 CRV...so lets hang out here and see what happens...
it was a typo. It should have read '96 Impreza Outback.
My comment about the lawn mower was to further illustrate that I'm a fan of Honda products, regardless of what they may be. My experience from 1965 - 1975 was with their motorcycles—still relevant in my opinion, as supporting the fact that I'm a long-term Honda buyer.
If I'm taking a 200 mile trip, I'll take a Forester any day of the week over a CRV. I don't like the school bus type of driving position. I find the CRV's door armrests to be very uncomfortable. I don't like the location of the power window switches. With a full load of passengers and cargo the the CRV's lack of power is a very big issue on the highway. I don't like the rear door. It opens blocking the curb (for the Japanese market—not the USA market). I much prefer a rear hatch arrangement. Because it's classified as a multi-purpose vehicle by the government, it's not required to meet the more difficult car crash requirements. The Forester "IS" a car, and DOES meet all those safety requirements.
Our Forester has a huge moonroof, which I love. It has heated seats, heated outside mirrors, a heated windshield to keep ice from forming on the wipers, 4-wheel disk brakes with ABS, standard 6-disk CD player, a very comfortable front seat, it much quicker and handles better than a CRV, and on and on...
Up until this year Consumer Reports rated the Forester well ahead of the CRV, as the top mini-SUV on the market. This year the new Rav4 edged out the Forester. The CRV still lags behind the best vehicles in that group in their opinion.
I think Drew has stated your point very well with references to back it up. What I think is better than anectodal reports about one vehicle or make are facts, figures, and reviews by authoritative sources. (I have a '92 Sub AWD) As far as personal choices, I think the CRV is much more comfortable. I DO agree that the power is not as great (as the Sub) but its great for most people. For many people (more than the Forester), the CRV was the best choice. I don't think your experience with Honda lawnmowers is relevant here! You mentioned you have an '86 Impreza??? Was that a typo? I didn't think they made the Impreza that far back..... I am also interested in the '02 CRV...so lets hang out here and see what happens...
Why is it whenever I have to travel or take a weekend off, I come back to this forum to find another "CR-V vs. some other model" debate. There's a whole other forum with about a bizillion posts comparing and contrasting everything from cupholders, to drivetrains, to AWD, passenger storage pockets (Did you know that Soob doesn't have any for rear passengers?), and so on... Check out the archives. The stuff from two years ago is even more inflamatory than this.
Pret - RT4WD works seemlessly. It engages when sensors determine that there is a difference in speeds between the front and rear. The system is "reactive" as Bob describes, but it also distibutes proportional amounts of power to the rear wheels depending on the degree of slippage. The greater the slippage, the more power it sends to the back. The system disengages immediately once traction has been restored.
As for published references: I believe Car and Driver had a nice article where they took almost all of the mini-utes through mountain country and through the snow. This would've been published about 4-8 months ago. C&D praised the CR-V for it's ability to get around in deep snow. With regard to the Pop Science tests that Drew described above, well, they sound like handling tests. I would have to agree with their results. The next time I'm going to drive a skidpad at high speed in the snow, I'll use a vehicle that has a better AWD system. Since I don't plan on doing that any time soon, I'll keep my CR-V.
As for comparisons: The C&D article above rated the Escape/Tribute as the worst performers in the snow. Along with the CR-V, the Soob was one of the better ones. Though C&D noted that the going gets tough for the Soob when the snow is deep. I'd put more weight on a test like this as it was based on real world driving. The Edmunds off-road test is a nice little article, but it's not a good reference for this debate. The CR-V scored higher than the Soob primarily because it has much better ground clearance, much better approach angles, and better departure angles. Only the ground clearance would make a difference when driving in the snow. The AWD systems were only part of the final results. As an added example, the RAV4 scored higher than both the CR-V and Forester for other reasons.
As for general automag preferences, some prefer the Forester and others prefer the CR-V. Listing all of the various comparisons would take about a bizillion posts. Have I mentioned the CR-V vs Forester archives?
Hello everyone. I have a 2000 electron blue CRV and really enjoyed this site when I was buying it. Now I'm back with a question. There is a CRV club that I heard about while I was here. I think it was CRV-IX or CRV information. I can't remember the web page address. Does this sound familier to anyone?
i heard that cr-v owners would get together once in a while and picnic and go off road with their cr-v's. i looked for the clubs in the north-east, and the only one i found is in rochester, ny. i am in nyc, are there any gatherings of local cr-veers in ny,nj,ct area?
in September, a all-new CRV debuts with a rumored 160-165 HP 2.4L engine, and in February or March an all-new Forester with a rumored 2.5 turbo appears—and the debate rages on.
There was one major flaw in the C&D snow test. The vehicles were all tested with their stock factory tires!
The Escape came with Firestone Wilderness HT tires which are DANGEROUS at best in the snow/ice. I had an Escape last winter and immediately replaced the Firestone's after the first snowfall. That made all the difference in the world and the Escape then did very well for me in snow and on ice.
A better test would have all the vehicles using identical snow tires. Another complicating factor is actual tire width. Wider tires tend to perform worse in the snow. The test should be done with the narrowest available tires (mounted on aftermarket steel rims if neccessary) that have the same height as the stock tires.
Having said that, I am looking forward to what the 2002 CRV brings to the table . . .
I disagree. I think they should be tested with stock tires. After all, that's the way most people buy the vehicles. It's up to the manufacturer, IMO, to equip the vehicles with the best possible tires.
stuck in CR-V mode or just bored . I'm curious as to how Sube is going to position the turbo Forester. I'd doubt they would make it more powerful than the WRX. What I think (not that it matters) they should do is offer a light turbo 2.5 (say 180-200 ponies) and the dual range tranny found in other parts of the world. That would reposition the Forster a bit, wouldn't it?
FWIW, the precise reason I bought the CR-V over the Forester is the extra room.
On a side note, if one is transitioning from a front drive sedan to a trucklet, the CR-V offers more familiar handling (read Understeer)than full time awd or a part time rwd based system.
I'm with Bob on the stock tires debate. While I certainly agree that better tires would have improved the Tribape's peformance, you can't just upgrade a car for the sake of having a fair comparison. "Let's just subtract $1,000 worth of sheetmetal from that RAV4, so it's on even playing field for a value comparison, shall we?"
Dudka - Visit the CR-V Information Xchange. It's a national club, so we have meets all over the place. Go to the following link. If you can't register as a member, send me an e-mail. We've been having some technical dificulties with the membership login program. http://www.hondasuv.com Myself and another member (Chas) were planning a CR-V meet for Cooperstown, NY sometime in September. Chas hasn't gotten a good response in his e-mails, so he is considering backing out. If he does, I'll hold one in Northern New England (probably in the white mountains of NH). More details to follow.
Stock tires are not a constant. Otherwise identical Accords in my dealer's lot have 3 different brands/models of tires. The Escape no longer comes with the Firestone tires. etc. etc.
Many people in the "Snow-belt" will change their tires for winter. I want to know which vehicle by mechanical design has the best snow capability. I can't expect the manufacturer to pick the optimal tires for my CHANGING conditions and ignore what will work in Florida year round.
I can not trust the C&D test results because they are based on vehicles with "random" tires that may not relate to what currently exists in the real world.
Canadatwo - What can we say... Write a letter to the editor and see what they do. I'm guessing that if you ask for a comparison based on "mechanical advantage" C&D is going to point you toward competing dealerships and tell you to bring your own tires. :-)
I agree, I think if a turbo does show up on the American-spec Forester (they've had a low-boost 2.0L turbo for years in other markets), I'm hoping it will be a low-boost 2.5L turbo, with around 200 HP. I would also love to see the dual-range tranny return to the North American market. That definitely would help set the Forester apart from the other mini-SUVs.
I don't think Subaru wants to change the Forester's position in the market, but "enhance" it. Folks over in the Subaru forums are screaming for more towing capability. They (myself included) want more utility, and a bit more space. I think it will be a bit larger. There's even a rumor floating around that it may be built of the Outback platform. The current model is built off the old Impreza platform.
I'm guessing it will be introduced in Japan in about a month or so, if it follows the same pattern that the new Impreza did.
Opps... I forgot—this is a CRV forum, isn't it. Sorry. = O
If the tires are not stock, but some tire that will maximize, the best traction, you're not getting a true picture of what an "average" example of that particular vehicle will do.
Yes, you will get an idea of what it's capable of with the "ideal" tire, but that's not realistic for the average potential customer. What you really want is a "snow tire test" to get that information.
But if the new Forester is indeed built off the Legacy Outback and not the Impreza, it'll be a very nice SUV. It will be like the Santa Fe- not too big and not too small- but with much more power. I hope they will use the new turbo from the WRX or the upcoming STi.
If Honda can match that, the Honda will win just on the basis on Honda reliability, resale value, and everything else Honda-related.
I agree, but it's just a rumor (re: being Outback-based). One of many, just like those here regarding the next CRV. I do hope it gets the multi-link rear suspension from the Outback, if for no other reason, that it's more space efficient than the current setup.
Actually I don't want to see the WRX turbo on this vehicle. It's a high-boost unit, which would be totally inappropriate for an SUV, where you want good pulling power from down low. The WRX doesn't do much below 3000 rpm. The WRX-STi is probably worse still.
"Which mini-ute performs best in the snow with the tires that by CHANCE happened to be mounted on the TEST vehicles that C&D had in November 2000 without regard to what brand and model of tires may or may not be on the specific vehicle(s) that you are looking at now AND assuming that you will insist on using stock tires during the winter in your particular area?"
I want to know "Which mini-ute performs best in the snow and ice with Michelin Alpins mounted?"
Wow, I leave for a few hours and look what happens!
I didn't think that the Impreza went back that far ('86)!
Glad to hear you like those Honda lawnmowers:) (Have you posted in the lawnmower forum here:)
You know, all the things you say about the Forester (moon roof, heated mirrors, etc) are still not enough to make me (or the greater number of buyers in this segment who opt for the Honda) like the Sub more. I just could not get past the cramped quarters of that thing.....or poor driving position. As far as power, I must be old fashioned, because the CRV has more power than what I am driving now (Previa) and what I am driving now (power wise only!) is just fine. The seat in the CRV is 1000 times more comfortable and has a MUCH better driving position than the CRV!!! Unfortunately, the Forester does not hold a candle to the CRV in terms of Consumer Reports reliabilty ratings....the most important, IMO.
Glad you paid for all those great options (heated mirrors, etc.)....not something I have any desire for (Yes, I live in the Frozen North and am singularly UNimpressed by such gadgets!).
I think we could go on and on here with the debate. But Varmit and the others are right....this is a CRV board and if we are going to debate this, it best resides in the CRV vs Forester forum. Cya......
Varmit, no, it was not just handling tests. They took a 500 mile trip though Michigan's lower peninsula, across the Mackinac Bridge, and then to a brake manufacturer's test track for winter testing. On that test track, they had access to groomed surfaces to simulate icy, snow-covered roads in combination with alternating bare and wet pavement conditions - in other words, typical winter road conditions. This way, they could test all vehicles on identical road conditions, hence eliminating that variable. They then also ran the vehicles through a full dry rack sequence to test the abilities on dry roads.
The objective for this test was to see how small SUVs would handle real world winter conditions that traditional SUVs have had to deal with for years, not just measurable differences. That's why their results are not just applicable for skidpads (they didn't conduct a skidpad test, BTW), and they drove at normal speeds suitable for the conditions, not atypical high speeds.
I think their main point about the CR-V's system was that you have to lose traction in order to gain traction, which is why they felt that the Forester's, the RAV4's full-time systems were more neutral, controllable, and predictable. Please note that they did not judge the vehicles solely by their AWD system performance. They praised the Forester for its vastly superior power, AWD system, ride and handling (least "truck-like), comfort and cargo room, but also praised the CR-V for its relatively roomy interior and good amount of standard equipment for the price. Unlike other magazines, they did not rank the tested vehicles.
FWIW, my Chrysler AWD minivan has a full-time viscous coupling AWD system (there is some power sent to the rear wheels at all times, but only about 10%) that is also mostly reactive. The handling and performance differences between it and the permanent 4WD system in the M-class are very significant on all surfaces. While both vehicles got me moving in the snow, the M-class was definitely a lot more secure/neutral - almost to the point of boredom - with little perceptible wheel slip, and just about instant traction at all times. Granted, I'd rather have the any AWD system (with all of its shortcomings) than just FWD
llofgren: Sorry, all I have is the article that I snipped out and kept (no issue number or date; I think it was winter of 1998 though). I was clearing out the shelf and I think I chucked out magazine itself.
Drew Host Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Drew, you mentioned the word "slalom" about four times in your initial description of the testing. With only your interpretation to read, it sounded to me like, well... a slalom.
Comments
I've not been around for a while, but just wanted to drop a little testimony for those considering a purchase of a CRV as to owner satisfaction.
I've had my CRV SE for almost 1 year (Aug) and I still love it as much today as the day I drove it home. I've had absolutely NO PROBLEMS whatsoever with anything. I have a little over 12,000 miles now and its as good as its ever been.
Living in Ohio I really loved the way it handled during the snow season and the anti lock brakes kicked in twice since I've owned it and did there job perfectly!
I did extensive research on this site before my purchase and just wanted to contribute something back for others looking for positive information regarding the CRV.
Tamila
My comments are based on being the owner of two Subarus, and just on plain common sense, or logic, if you will.
IMO, it just stands to reason that if you have an AWD system, such as Subaru's, whereby the portion of power that is sent to various wheels, is constantly changing to maximize the the best traction—to me, that's the best system.
Now, the driver may never notice the difference. And, as you say under normal driving conditions, it may make little or no difference. However, when push-comes-to-shove (challenging, and slippery road conditions), it may(?) make a very big difference.
I just think the Subaru AWD system adds an extra degree of insurance.
As a side note, you may have noticed the new TV commercials Subaru is running on their new performance-oriented WRX. With this model Subaru is pushing AWD as a "performance" item, not just a foul-weather item. The WRX has pretty much proven that AWD can greatly enhance roadholding and traction under the most challenging racing and high-speed driving types of endeavors. Again the AWD is always in effect, and always searching for the right wheels to send the power to. Now this may be of little interest to your average CRV customer, but it really illustrates what I've been trying to say.
Bob
I think that what you are saying is that theoretically, the Subaru sytem is better (I can agree with that), but in actuality, there is no real life difference. I think in response to the question form Pret (that started this discussion)(s)he would notice NO difference between the two based on available evidence.
That exactly what I was looking for - assurance of realtime 4WD working well under moderate snow and ice conditions.. Thats the only max. 'offroad' driving I would be doing - going up ski resorts & passes.. By the sounds of it, CR-V is a champ. Im going for it! Thanks again.
I think you are making a very good decision on the CRV. In addition to what I have already mentioned, it has the highest reliabilty rating of any SUV according to Consumer Reports (almost 80% better than average reliabilty). In fact, I think it has the highest reliabilty of ANY vehicle....period. It has a great ride and is very manuverable...and very economical to buy and run. Now is a great time to buy one because they are getting ready for the new model year.....you should be able to get invoice pricing or close to it (if you are buying new).
I have heard that the auto transmission runs a little quieter because it is geared different than the manual tranny. If you are looking to carry your snowboard on top, you might want to see what Yakima and Thule (web sites) have available for the CRV to see if you want to get yours with a factory roof rack or not. Did I mention the high re-sale value???? I could go on and on........
Re; roof rack
For snowboards and the like the CRV roof rack will be okay. Be advised, however, the roof rack is only rated for 75 pounds, which is among the lowest in the industry.
For what it's worth, I would wait for the '02 model. It will be an all-new model, with much more power. Even though you may get some tempting prices on an '01 model, after the new model debuts, you may regret not having waited. Or, at least wait until the '02 model shows itself, then make your decision on a '01 leftover, or the new '02 model.
Bob
The only problem with the Subaru AWD drive system maybe being better under extreme conditions.....but again, no evidence to back that up....is that there are more parts, gadgets and gizmos, all suscepitble to failure. Its probably little wonder that the Subaru's reliability is significantly below that of the CRV.
I can't imagine any snow related item for the roof rack being more than 75 lbs! Unless you are going to carry TWO canoes....weight equals 80 lbs....you will be just fine. What is the point of slamming a spec ("the roof rack capacity of 75 lbs is among the lowest") if it doesn't mean a thing eal life????
There are advantages of not waiting for the new '02 model: you get a known quantity ('01 model) that has been tested and refined since its introduction. Price is going to be outstanding. If you wait until the new ones come out, you may find that they are not quite what you wanted....and in the meantime the choice among the (remaining) '01's is alot less.
BTW, there has been NO offical word or even semi-reliable rumors as to what the '02's will bring. My $.02
Re: Subaru reliability
I have yet run into a Subaru owner who is unhappy with their vehicle. In fact, most Subaru owners I've spoken to are repeat buyers. To me that says volumes about their reliability. And... nowhere—ever—have I heard of a Subaru AWD system failing. So much for your gadgets & gizmo theory...
Finally, I invite you to visit the Subaru forums here at Edmunds if you doubt me. I'm sure they would very interested in your CRV vs. Forester (or any Subaru) opinions.
Re: roof racks
What slam? It's a fact.
The CRV and I believe the the RX300 have the lowest roof rack rating in the industry at 75 pounds. Most cars and many SUVs have roof rack ratings of 100 pounds. The Jeep Liberty, Grand Cherokee and Subaru Foresters have roof rack ratings of 150 pounds. In fact all the CRV competitors have roof rack ratings of 100 pounds or more. Don't believe me? Just visit some of the CRV's competitor dealers. They all have stickers on the roof racks stating those figures.
Re: '01 vs. '02 CRVs
If you re-read my post, I suggested waiting until the '02 models come out before making your decision. The '02 models will be all-new, and most likely be better than the current model. That way you will be making an "informed" decision that you won't regret.
Lastly, this is a CRV discussion area, not just a CRV "Fan Club." This means both positive and negative issues regarding the CRV are brought to light. Get used to it.
Bob
Thanks in advance for your help.
Thanks in advance
With regards to reliability, lets stick with FACTS (see the latest Consumer Reports 2001 car issue that shows Subaru SUV reliability way below the CRV) and NOT anecdotal reports ("my Aunt Bessie never had a problem with her Jeep Grand Cherokee"). I am a Subaru owner who will NOT be a repeat buyer. No particular grudge...I just think there are way more value oriented vehicles (Toyota and Honda)out there.
With regards to roof racks, here is the thing: In real life, will Pret or 99.9% of any others NEED more than 75 lbs??? So whats the difference? You can always come out with some feature of a car where it is just average....but does that make a difference in the real world?
On the '02's: Nothing wrong with waiting for the 02's....except if you see want you want now....its a great time. Its like anything, there will always be something bigger and better to come along....and then the price and selection MAY not be there on the '01's.
One final comment on the Subaru AWD system. I have seen alot on all the boards here about VSC (vehicle skid control) and other "smart" sytems that recognize wheel spin and apply ABS to the wheel losing traction and route power to the "good" wheel, etc. Here is my spin (pun intended!): UNTIL, I hear from reputable, independent sources that such a system really is significantly superior to plain ol' AWD (or in Honda's case RT 4WD), I consider it marketing hype. Please don't automatically believe everything that Madison Avenue feeds you.......
It was clear to me the very first time I drove an AWD/RT 4WD system, that it was a significant step forward. Clearly head and shoulders above everything else. Can't say the same about the newer systems that employ VSC and the like. I don't see that they are any better than plain ol' AWD/RT 4WD.
Yes, this board is for ALL viewpoints, but there (also) IS a separate discussion board on CRV vs Forester....why don't you try that? Are the Honda folks over at the Subaru boards pointing out all the shortcomings? The fact that you are here says something about.......
What was happening was that in turns on their track, the CR-V's front end would lose traction resulting in major understeer. This mean loss of steering response and basically no way to control the attitude of the vehicle with the throttle since the vehicle would just plow to the outside of a corner a FWD car would. The lost of front wheel traction would prompt power to be transfered to the rear wheels. However, the sudden gain in rear wheel traction would then cause the vehicle to oversteer (tail end steps out) and upset the balance in the slalom runs. On dry pavement, the system also brought understeer, "with body roll allowing air to appear under the inside rear wheel in the slalom".
With the Subaru Forester, they reported that "power distribution with this (full-time AWD) system is excellent...with the vehicle nearly neutral under power".
Here's a good explanation of the differences between the systems by a 4WD and off-roading expert:
http://www.4x4abc.com/4WD101/need.html
I think you're getting four wheel traction control systems and stability control systems confused. Four wheel traction control simulates locking differentials on both axles, allowing the vehicle to move even if only one wheel has traction (within limits, of course). This system works so well that even Land Rover has employed it on all of their flagship Range Rover SUV. The Hummer has it as well.
Stability control, which doesn't need four driven wheels to work, senses when the vehicle is not going in the line that the driver intends, and corrects understeer or oversteer before a skid happens. Here's a video clip that will explain things very clearly, with some interesting video footage of the system in action:
http://www.theautochannel.com/media/netshow/misc/esp-consumer-video.asx
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Also anyone have any suggestions on some reputable dealers in this state, I live in Silver Springs. I think the CR-V is already priced pretty low, but I don't want to get taken to the cleaners if you know what I mean, I'm not going tob break my neck for 500 bucks. So any help in MD would be greatly appreciated.
Also any new info on the new design, any current pics so on so on.
what could be wrong?
Yes, I know about the traction control and skid control differnces....that they are two separate systems. I think thats great that Range Rover and Hummer use traction control....as does Toyota now on the 4 Runner. I just want to see some independent confirmation that this system (and skid control) DO make a difference:)
my 2 cents :-)
Actually, keep the 15 inch wheels, and just go with bigger tires. That is what will get taken more seriously. Of course, you then need more power to move the bigger tires. Oh yeah, they are coming out with a new model. Hopefully this addresses these two issues.
As far as aesthetics, I was considering a CRV, but my wife ruled it out immediately as looking too wussy.
I then went through a wide range of choices: Ranger pickup, XTerra, Cherokee, Trooper, Sportage, S10 Blazer, Toyota pickup, 4Runner, Explorer, and finally got ...
...
...
...
a 1997 Jeep Wrangler Sport!
I am SO happy with my choice. I put 31 " tires on it, and am mounting a trailer hitch. It holds the dog, and the camping gear, and will tow the boat. It will also tackle offroad chores with aplomb (tried it a little already). I plan on adding a receiver rack/shelf and spare tire bike rack.
This thing is the standard to which all others must aspire. I wish I had the money for a 2001 Wrangler with hard top, but maybe I can trade next year...
If only Honda made a 4X4 convertible with some power.... (sigh)
Bob
Let me say this: I have owned some sort of a Honda product ever since 1965. That's over 36 years of experience with Honda products. I don't need you to educate me as to how good Hondas are. My daughter has a Prelude and I have Honda lawn mower. My long experience with Honda is one reason I lurk over here. The other reason is that the new CRV is just around the corner, and I'm seeking info on that model when it becomes available, which could be any day now.
Before we bought our Forester, I drove many a CRV. Compared to the Forester, the CRV is underpowered, not as comfortable as the Forester on long trips, and doesn't have the "content" features that our Forester has. As far as I can see, the only advantage the CRV has over the Forester is that it is larger and roomier. So for us, and many other happy Forester owners, it was the right choice.
My son's '86 Impreza Outback has over 80,000 miles on it without anything breaking. Our '01 Forester has 14,000 miles on it without anything breaking. I'd say that's a pretty good track record, in anybody's book.
So, can we agree to disagree, and still be civil?
Bob
As far as personal choices, I think the CRV is much more comfortable. I DO agree that the power is not as great (as the Sub) but its great for most people. For many people (more than the Forester), the CRV was the best choice. I don't think your experience with Honda lawnmowers is relevant here!
You mentioned you have an '86 Impreza??? Was that a typo? I didn't think they made the Impreza that far back.....
I am also interested in the '02 CRV...so lets hang out here and see what happens...
My comment about the lawn mower was to further illustrate that I'm a fan of Honda products, regardless of what they may be. My experience from 1965 - 1975 was with their motorcycles—still relevant in my opinion, as supporting the fact that I'm a long-term Honda buyer.
If I'm taking a 200 mile trip, I'll take a Forester any day of the week over a CRV. I don't like the school bus type of driving position. I find the CRV's door armrests to be very uncomfortable. I don't like the location of the power window switches. With a full load of passengers and cargo the the CRV's lack of power is a very big issue on the highway. I don't like the rear door. It opens blocking the curb (for the Japanese market—not the USA market). I much prefer a rear hatch arrangement. Because it's classified as a multi-purpose vehicle by the government, it's not required to meet the more difficult car crash requirements. The Forester "IS" a car, and DOES meet all those safety requirements.
Our Forester has a huge moonroof, which I love. It has heated seats, heated outside mirrors, a heated windshield to keep ice from forming on the wipers, 4-wheel disk brakes with ABS, standard 6-disk CD player, a very comfortable front seat, it much quicker and handles better than a CRV, and on and on...
Up until this year Consumer Reports rated the Forester well ahead of the CRV, as the top mini-SUV on the market. This year the new Rav4 edged out the Forester. The CRV still lags behind the best vehicles in that group in their opinion.
Bob
As far as personal choices, I think the CRV is much more comfortable. I DO agree that the power is not as great (as the Sub) but its great for most people. For many people (more than the Forester), the CRV was the best choice. I don't think your experience with Honda lawnmowers is relevant here!
You mentioned you have an '86 Impreza??? Was that a typo? I didn't think they made the Impreza that far back.....
I am also interested in the '02 CRV...so lets hang out here and see what happens...
Why is it whenever I have to travel or take a weekend off, I come back to this forum to find another "CR-V vs. some other model" debate. There's a whole other forum with about a bizillion posts comparing and contrasting everything from cupholders, to drivetrains, to AWD, passenger storage pockets (Did you know that Soob doesn't have any for rear passengers?), and so on... Check out the archives. The stuff from two years ago is even more inflamatory than this.
;-)
Maybe you should post here:
beatfarmer "Your Lawn Mower vs your SUV - Which spends more time off-road?" Jul 10, 2001 11:44am
As for published references: I believe Car and Driver had a nice article where they took almost all of the mini-utes through mountain country and through the snow. This would've been published about 4-8 months ago. C&D praised the CR-V for it's ability to get around in deep snow. With regard to the Pop Science tests that Drew described above, well, they sound like handling tests. I would have to agree with their results. The next time I'm going to drive a skidpad at high speed in the snow, I'll use a vehicle that has a better AWD system. Since I don't plan on doing that any time soon, I'll keep my CR-V.
As for comparisons: The C&D article above rated the Escape/Tribute as the worst performers in the snow. Along with the CR-V, the Soob was one of the better ones. Though C&D noted that the going gets tough for the Soob when the snow is deep. I'd put more weight on a test like this as it was based on real world driving. The Edmunds off-road test is a nice little article, but it's not a good reference for this debate. The CR-V scored higher than the Soob primarily because it has much better ground clearance, much better approach angles, and better departure angles. Only the ground clearance would make a difference when driving in the snow. The AWD systems were only part of the final results. As an added example, the RAV4 scored higher than both the CR-V and Forester for other reasons.
As for general automag preferences, some prefer the Forester and others prefer the CR-V. Listing all of the various comparisons would take about a bizillion posts. Have I mentioned the CR-V vs Forester archives?
http://www.hondasuv.com/
Stay tuned...
Bob
The Escape came with Firestone Wilderness HT tires which are DANGEROUS at best in the snow/ice.
I had an Escape last winter and immediately replaced the Firestone's after the first snowfall.
That made all the difference in the world and the Escape then did very well for me in snow and on ice.
A better test would have all the vehicles using identical snow tires. Another complicating factor is actual tire width. Wider tires tend to perform worse in the snow. The test should be done with the narrowest available tires (mounted on aftermarket steel rims if neccessary) that have the same height as the stock tires.
Having said that, I am looking forward to what the 2002 CRV brings to the table . . .
Bob
I don't get those on the CRV I will just have to order the Tribute and get used to the fuel smell and stalling and noise and everything else.
Subaru hasn't designed a car with look I like for 30 years, I'm not waiting for the new Forrester, period.
Rav4, too cute for me.too small.
Liberty, too heavy and too tall, probably another roll over babe.
FWIW, the precise reason I bought the CR-V over the Forester is the extra room.
On a side note, if one is transitioning from a front drive sedan to a trucklet, the CR-V offers more familiar handling (read Understeer)than full time awd or a part time rwd based system.
Dudka - Visit the CR-V Information Xchange. It's a national club, so we have meets all over the place. Go to the following link. If you can't register as a member, send me an e-mail. We've been having some technical dificulties with the membership login program.
http://www.hondasuv.com
Myself and another member (Chas) were planning a CR-V meet for Cooperstown, NY sometime in September. Chas hasn't gotten a good response in his e-mails, so he is considering backing out. If he does, I'll hold one in Northern New England (probably in the white mountains of NH). More details to follow.
Many people in the "Snow-belt" will change their tires for winter. I want to know which vehicle by mechanical design has the best snow capability. I can't expect the manufacturer to pick the optimal tires for my CHANGING conditions and ignore what will work in Florida year round.
I can not trust the C&D test results because they are based on vehicles with "random" tires that may not relate to what currently exists in the real world.
Originally, they were STOCK cars.
Imagine if they ran STOCK cars now? Could you see Jeffy Gordon in a STOCK car? Sterling Marlin?
It sure would improve the offerings in cars I bet!!!! Probably would help safety and other areas as well.
I agree, I think if a turbo does show up on the American-spec Forester (they've had a low-boost 2.0L turbo for years in other markets), I'm hoping it will be a low-boost 2.5L turbo, with around 200 HP. I would also love to see the dual-range tranny return to the North American market. That definitely would help set the Forester apart from the other mini-SUVs.
I don't think Subaru wants to change the Forester's position in the market, but "enhance" it. Folks over in the Subaru forums are screaming for more towing capability. They (myself included) want more utility, and a bit more space. I think it will be a bit larger. There's even a rumor floating around that it may be built of the Outback platform. The current model is built off the old Impreza platform.
I'm guessing it will be introduced in Japan in about a month or so, if it follows the same pattern that the new Impreza did.
Opps... I forgot—this is a CRV forum, isn't it. Sorry. = O
Bob
Yes, you will get an idea of what it's capable of with the "ideal" tire, but that's not realistic for the average potential customer. What you really want is a "snow tire test" to get that information.
Bob
If Honda can match that, the Honda will win just on the basis on Honda reliability, resale value, and everything else Honda-related.
Actually I don't want to see the WRX turbo on this vehicle. It's a high-boost unit, which would be totally inappropriate for an SUV, where you want good pulling power from down low. The WRX doesn't do much below 3000 rpm. The WRX-STi is probably worse still.
Bob
"Which mini-ute performs best in the snow with the tires that by CHANCE happened to be mounted on the TEST vehicles that C&D had in November 2000 without regard to what brand and model of tires may or may not be on the specific vehicle(s) that you are looking at now AND assuming that you will insist on using stock tires during the winter in your particular area?"
I want to know "Which mini-ute performs best in the snow and ice with Michelin Alpins mounted?"
I use the stock tires from spring to fall.
I didn't think that the Impreza went back that far ('86)!
Glad to hear you like those Honda lawnmowers:)
(Have you posted in the lawnmower forum here:)
You know, all the things you say about the Forester (moon roof, heated mirrors, etc) are still not enough to make me (or the greater number of buyers in this segment who opt for the Honda) like the Sub more. I just could not get past the cramped quarters of that thing.....or poor driving position.
As far as power, I must be old fashioned, because the CRV has more power than what I am driving now (Previa) and what I am driving now (power wise only!) is just fine. The seat in the CRV is 1000 times more comfortable and has a MUCH better driving position than the CRV!!!
Unfortunately, the Forester does not hold a candle to the CRV in terms of Consumer Reports reliabilty ratings....the most important, IMO.
Glad you paid for all those great options (heated mirrors, etc.)....not something I have any desire for (Yes, I live in the Frozen North and am singularly UNimpressed by such gadgets!).
I think we could go on and on here with the debate. But Varmit and the others are right....this is a CRV board and if we are going to debate this, it best resides in the CRV vs Forester forum.
Cya......
The objective for this test was to see how small SUVs would handle real world winter conditions that traditional SUVs have had to deal with for years, not just measurable differences. That's why their results are not just applicable for skidpads (they didn't conduct a skidpad test, BTW), and they drove at normal speeds suitable for the conditions, not atypical high speeds.
I think their main point about the CR-V's system was that you have to lose traction in order to gain traction, which is why they felt that the Forester's, the RAV4's full-time systems were more neutral, controllable, and predictable. Please note that they did not judge the vehicles solely by their AWD system performance. They praised the Forester for its vastly superior power, AWD system, ride and handling (least "truck-like), comfort and cargo room, but also praised the CR-V for its relatively roomy interior and good amount of standard equipment for the price. Unlike other magazines, they did not rank the tested vehicles.
FWIW, my Chrysler AWD minivan has a full-time viscous coupling AWD system (there is some power sent to the rear wheels at all times, but only about 10%) that is also mostly reactive. The handling and performance differences between it and the permanent 4WD system in the M-class are very significant on all surfaces. While both vehicles got me moving in the snow, the M-class was definitely a lot more secure/neutral - almost to the point of boredom - with little perceptible wheel slip, and just about instant traction at all times. Granted, I'd rather have the any AWD system (with all of its shortcomings) than just FWD
llofgren: Sorry, all I have is the article that I snipped out and kept (no issue number or date; I think it was winter of 1998 though). I was clearing out the shelf and I think I chucked out magazine itself.
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards