2001 - 2006 Honda CR-Vs

13132343637314

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    If you had a switch, that could work. You just couldn't use it full time. It's the same with the Escape.

    BTW, I read a few posts on the Escape/Tribute Problems board (900+ posts), and just didn't have the heart to continue. I stand corrected - the tranny is not their biggest concern. Dead engines are.

    I'm sure the AWD sensors send an electrical signal, which you could override manually with a switch.

    Ideally, you'd leave the sensor functioning, so you still had automatic engagement when needed.

    -juice
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Hmmm... Where to start.

    I like Beatfarmer's suggestion that his friend in the Jeep landed on that rock. So I'll just write a big happy "LOL" to that first.

    Dudka has interesting idea with regard to force feeding pressure to the RTWD system. That would incorporate many of the existing parts, without adding too many mechanical complications (and cost).

    Juice is correct about the binding issue, though. RT4WD is not designed to be in operation on dry pavement. Basically, it's just like a traditional 4X4 system except that it engages and (just as importantly) disengages automatically. The fact that the connection between front and rear is based on wet clutch packs might allow for some slippage. This could/might/possibly soften the blow of a binding problem, but I'm just guessing here.

    I disagree with the Juicer about the over heating issue, though. My understanding of the potential overheating problem is that it's related to the frequent engaging and disengaging of the system. When the clutch packs keep coming into contact with each other over and over again, they'll build up heat. If the packs are locked together, there's no heat build up.

    If I were to make a suggestion to Honda, it would be to make a locking feature such as the MDX. One that automatically disengages after reaching a certain speed.

    Regarding the Forester. Juice, I can't believe you didn't mention this. Soob has two systems; one of the automatic and another for the manual. At the wheels, only the manual is permanently locked at a 50/50 split. The automatic is 50/50 in lower gears, but then fades to FWD dominance with only 10% of the torque going to the rear. Did I get that right?
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    200 hp and 200 ft lbs are just impresive sounding numbers when the truck is on a lift.
  • raybearraybear Member Posts: 1,795
    The other problem the CRV has is the transverse mounted engine creates a complicated power delivery system.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Hmm, if it locks and it's a wet clutch, then the clutch essentially acts as a limited slip differential. Not sure I'd rely on that too heavily, but it's a valid point.

    You're pretty much right on as far as the Subie AWD systems go. I drive a manual so I was talking about mine.

    It starts at 50/50 and lets the center viscous coupling lock up when needed to send more power to either axle. Nice thing is, it's much less likely to break traction given all four tires are being used in the first place.

    The autos have various sensors that measure things like throttle position, steering, and even hill grades to pro-actively adjust the distribution of power (it doesn't wait for slippage to occur). Plus, each axle never gets less than 10% of the power.

    I believe the RAV4, Highlander, and Sante Fe use systems similar to the Forester w/manual. The CR-V's is closer in concept to the Escape's.

    Ray: I'm not sure I'd call a transverse engine complicated, just less direct. A longitudinal layout allows a straight driveshaft to both axles, i.e. parallel to the crankshaft vs. perpendicular.

    -juice
  • raybearraybear Member Posts: 1,795
    That was my point. The Subaru and Porsche systems have the most direct, hence the least complicated and best power transfer of all 4WD's.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I'm not so sure that it would bind when steering. Keep in mind the CRV is 100% FWD all the time, and as with all FWD cars, there is no binding. Torque steer perhaps, but no binding.

    The only thing that occurs with the CRV is that when the front wheels slip, power is sent to the rear. So where's the binding?

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    We were talking about overriding the AWD system so that it was active full-time, or via a switch.

    -juice
  • beatfarmerbeatfarmer Member Posts: 244
    Who want's to try and rig this up? Varmit? All we need is a 12 volt pump and some plumbing.

    Bob, pay attention to the current thread. There will be a quiz later.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Even if you override the the AWD, the front wheels will still react like they would normally do—that is like a FWD car.

    Binding occurs with traditional part-time 4WD because there is no other differential to compensate for the outside front tires different turning arc. The wider arc of the outside front tires—and turning at the same speed of the inside front tires with a narrower arc—causes the binding in a tight turn.

    Even if you bypass the the AWD, the front wheels will still have that (FWD) differential that allows the front wheels to turn without binding.

    Am I missing something here?

    Bob
  • beatfarmerbeatfarmer Member Posts: 244
    There is also a speed diference between the front and rear axles. In a turn the front wheels and the rears follow a different track and that is where the binding would occure. A center diff would allow power to travel to both ends and compensate for the binding.

    Remember, the reason a traditional 4x4 can't be driven on dry pavement is the lack of center diff. Full time 4wd (AWD) requires a center diff to prevent binding.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It's not side to side, it's front to back. Or axle to axle, if you prefer to think of it that way. All four tires take a different path in a turn. The open diffs at each axle can accomodate the differences from side to side, but not from front to back.

    For example, from a standstill, and turning, the front wheels will take a wider arc than the rears (unless you have a 4 wheel steering Prelude), so the front axle would turn slightly quicker than the rear axle.

    Many 4x4s, most actually, have open diffs front and rear, and lock the center diff when engaged. You're only supposed to do that on slippery surfaces, else the axles try to spin at different speeds and can't.

    Usually the tires scrub off the difference, which is much easier on a slippery surface. On dry you have what they call "binding". It's pretty nasty. My college roommate had a Montero that once in a while refused to get out of 4WD, and on dry surfaces in turns it was a bizarre feeling.

    -juice
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Drew is much better at figuring this stuff out than I am. My head begins to hurt when we start talking differentials. I'll cross post Dudka's suggestions and Bob's point about the front v/c over at the CR-V IX. We have an Honda Engineer there who may be able to sort this out despite the fact that it's all theoretical.

    Bob - I suspect the binding you describe is only a problem for vehicles armed with "lockers". When taking a tight turn, the front tires on any car take a different/longer path than the rear tires. Therefore they travel at different speeds (just enough to make RT4WD begin to engage, BTW). I think that this is the binding that we have a problem with since the front and rear are connected.
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Woops. Juice, you beat me to it.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Re: lockers. Not so.

    Take for example Jeep's part-time Command-Trac. There is no front locker, but it's a part-time system that shouldn't be driven on hard pavement, because you will get binding in the steering.

    On the other hand, Jeep's full-time Selec-Trac, which has a full-time (and part-time) mode has a center dif (in full-time mode) that allows for the different arc involved in the steering, thus no binding when the front wheels are turned.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yep, "lockers" is a term used for manual locking differentials, though in this case they mean for each axle to lock the sides together.

    In that case you need REALLY slippery turf or things will get ugly.

    It's funny, though, because in a way these work against you in the snow - they force wheels to slip (a little) in turns, because the wheels will turn at the exact same speed no matter what. That's why they are designed for off road duty. The advantage is that they can withstand a lot more torque that way.

    Subarus are really designed for slippery pavement. That's fine - it snows far more often than I can make it off-road, despite me being in the tiny percentage that does venture off the pavement.

    -juice
  • vonnyvoncevonnyvonce Member Posts: 129
    Beat farmer was correct. I was only suggesting a "switch" if you will for those times when 4 wheel drive is absolutely needed deep snow would be one. There was no intent to leave this on all the time.
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Bob - You're still getting confused with the side to side vs front to back. Lemme see if I can follow the line of thought in our posts...

    In post #1663, you were wondering about the side to side interaction on the FWD CR-V. As noted by Beatfarmer and Juice before me (talk about redundant), the problem with a CR-V binding is a front to back issue. This is due to the fact that it lacks a center differential (between the front and rear axles).

    In post #1666, I remarked that the side to side binding that you've described is a problem for vehicles with lockers. I was trying to convey that the CR-V's problem is not the same.

    Both Jeep examples that you've described in post #1668 are cases of front to back binding (like the CR-V). Command-Trac has the problem, but Select-Trac does not. They are not examples of side to side binding (like a truck with lockers).

    Furthermore... Boy, I'm really getting on the soap box now... It would be better to differentiate between the two types of binding. With lockers, we have a "binding in the steering" (that's what it feels like anyway). When the vehicle lacks a center differential, we have a "binding in the drivetrain". I hope that doesn't just confuse the issue even more.

    Okay, as long as we're this far off topic... What are "air lockers"? Most lockers are engaged manually. I've always assumed that air lockers are your basic mechanical design, but they have an air powered system that can engage them from inside the cab. That sounds almost silly, but it's my best guess. Where's Nanuq when you need him?
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I always thought the binding was between the outside and inside front wheels, not front-to-back binding.

    I've driven Command Trac in 4WD on hard pavement, just to test it. I've always felt the binding through the steering, or so I thought, hence my train of thinking. I never considered that the front axles and the rear axles actually travel in different arcs through corners, which obviously they do.

    It does make sense however, if you have a "central" dif between the front and rear axles that compensates for the binding, that it's a front-to-rear issue, not side-to-side issue as I had thought.

    Thanks for the clarification. See, even geezers can be educated ;)

    Bob
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Are you ready for Beatfarmer's quiz now?

    =)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    At Edmunds Live there was a Durango available for testing. When we got in and drove it, we realized that the previous driver had left 4WD engaged. How?

    It was strange. The tires would squeel and chirp in turns, even going slow. They were scrubbing off speed, acting as a "differential", if you will.

    After a while the tires were so abused that they told people NOT to use 4WD, because so many people forgot to disengage it after the mud hill. It had so much clearance and traction with its knobby tires that it got by in 2WD anyway.

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I don't do tests. ;)

    Bob
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Bob - That's not the "can do" attitude we expect from our members in this forum. I suspect that the low driver's position in that Forester of yours is having a negative effect on your self esteem. :-) :-)
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    Maybe that's why SUVs flip so often...
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Whoa... Lighten up there, Dip. This seems to be speading to your sense of humor as well.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Sounds like someone is bored and trying to start something. I'm not biting!

    It's FRIDAY! :-)

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
  • sasquatch_2000sasquatch_2000 Member Posts: 800
    "Yep, "lockers" is a term used for manual locking differentials, though in this case they mean for each axle to lock the sides together.

    In that case you need REALLY slippery turf or things will get ugly."

    Then why do performance cars have lockers? Detroit Lockers were standard on Mustangs, for one.
  • sasquatch_2000sasquatch_2000 Member Posts: 800
    Funny, I have 3 friends who have Wranglers. I just got one (not by their influence, ... Really!!)

    I don't recall them ever flipping over. Not once have they woken up in the morning, gone out to the driveway and yelled back "Honey, the Jeep flipped again!"

    What give with people thinking cars flip?
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    image
  • drew_drew_ Member Posts: 3,382
    FWIW, the late model automatic tranny Subaru AWD system is not split 90%/10% as we though. Patti, the Subaru of America rep here in Town hall, confirmed that it's actually split at 70/30, with the torque split ratios actively changing depending on the conditions (ex. accelerating, braking, etc.).


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    there's nothing for you to bite, axe

    sasquatch- cars don't flip. SUVs don't flip either. Their drivers flip them.
  • albckrstffalbckrstff Member Posts: 2
    OK, all. I'm ready to buy a 2001 CR-V SE but need your help on a few things. 1. Is the Honda extended warranty(ies) a good value and, if more than one is offered, which should I select? What kind of price should I expect? 2. What about rustproofing; is it worth it? I've heard that, in addition to rustproofing, it helps deaden the road noise? True? If so, is it significant? Again, what should I expect to pay for this? 3. I'm being quoted a price of $21,400 for a new 2001 SE, which includes, in addition to the standard SE package, roof rack, side pipes & front splash guards. Is this a good price? 4. Are there any other dealer-installed options that you would suggest?

    Thanks in advance for your help.
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Drew - Cool. I didn't know that they'd changed it.

    Albckrstff - Generally, I don't recommend an extended warranty. The CR-V has been rated as the most reliable car on the US market. While it's not impossible for something serious to go wrong, it just isn't likely.

    The items listed in that extra package can be purchased through on-line sources; typically for less than what the dealers are asking. Installing the sport trim and front mud guards couldn't be easier. I can understand if the roof rack isn't a job that you'd want to tackle, but even that really isn't all that difficult.

    Actually, things like the mud guards, cargo net, and other simple accessories can be won at CR-V meets. I just won a cargo mat ($70 value) at the Mid Atlantic Meet earlier this Summer.

    As for the price: Most folks are getting CR-Vs for about the invoice price +/- a few hundred dollars.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Are you sure about the 70/30 front-to-rear power split on automatic Subarus?

    Originally it was 90/10, as you mentioned. I did hear somewhere (Patti?) that it was 80/20, but I'm not sure that is correct either. This is the first time I've heard 70/30. If this is indeed true, what models years did it begin?

    BTW, I'll post this question over in the Subie area too. Maybe we can get some offical clairifcation on this from Pattie.

    Bob
  • drew_drew_ Member Posts: 3,382
    As I just wrote in the Meet the members topic, now that you mentioned 80/20, I think I might have remembered incorrectly (it was quite a while back, eh?). Perhaps someone else over there remembers too? The torque split ratio does change as the conditions warranty though. I know that for sure.


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I hope Patti can shed some light on this. I'm curious as to why and when the power split change was done, and as to whether it effects all models with automatic (except the VDC and WRX automatics) trannys.

    Bob
  • drew_drew_ Member Posts: 3,382
    You were right. It's 80/20, as Ross confirmed. Patti's source originally mistakenly said it was 60/20, which confused a bunch of us. But she verified the 80/20 split later on. An 80/20 split would be better than a 90/10 split as it would lessen the reaction time for power transfer. The extra torque to the rear wheels would also ensure more neutral handling.


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • buzzlightbuzzlight Member Posts: 44
    Who in their right mind would buy a 2001 CR-v with a much improved 2002 just around the corner.
  • zigster38zigster38 Member Posts: 117
    mag-x.com the new crv? Hope so, they actually made it look good....
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Buzz - Because you can get a geat deal on the 01 models now. Also, we have no idea what those improvements might be and who can tell how much "much improved" really means.

    Zigster - You don't mean the pics of the HR-V, do you? That's a completely different car.
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    HR-Vs are sold in Japan and the UK, and perhaps other markets too. BTW, the HR-V was just redesigned recently. I think it's looker.

    Bob
  • dmauly2kdmauly2k Member Posts: 6
    If you have any information on the 2002 Honda CR-V, please email me at DMAULY2K@AOL.COM Thanks
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    This is the Honda's UK site. Just click on the HR-V pictures (either the 3-door or 5-door models). The HR-V is a bit smaller than the CR-V, and it has a 1.6L engine.

    http://www.honda.co.uk/new.html

    Or, if you wish to see a good picture of the 5-door model, I suggest that you bop on down to your local Barnes & Noble bookstore, go to to the magazine area, and—in the July issue of CAR magazine (from the UK), and on pages 108-109, you will find a double-page ad on the new 5-door HR-V.

    I think it's a neat looking vehicle, and I hope the new CR-V looks half as good as this vehicle does. The front of the HR-V (and the Acura MDX too) both slightly remind me of amphibious automobiles and amphibious landing craft in their general shape, IMO.

    Bob
  • sluglineslugline Member Posts: 391
    On the topic of extended warranties, I would concur with varmit, and skip 'em. I believe that you're more likely to get more benefit from sticking that money in sound investments, or towards a well-deserved vacation. I live in the Sunbelt, so I can't really comment on the rustproofing.

    Now, I may have to disagree with varmit on the dealer add-ons. I looked up prices on the rack, flaps, and side trim at handa-accessories.com, added the invoice price listed for an '01 SE here on Edmunds, and came up with a total of approximately $21758. Did your dealer also give you a price on just the car without the extras?

    On the surface, your dealer's quote seems competitive, plus you can roll the cost of the accessories into your monthly payments if you are financing, and you won't need to bother with installing the stuff yourself.

    Possible downsides: If your dealer's price for the SE (no add-ons) was maybe $400 less than invoice (or lower), then ordering online begins to make sense again. You also may be able to avoid sales tax (but pay shipping) on the add-ons.

    In any case, the important thing is that you end up happy with your car. :)
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Here's a few more links on the HR-V. They're sold side by side with the CR-V in Australia. Bob is correct. The HR-V has been recently redesigned.

    HR-V five door

    Aussie HR-V


    Slugline - Holy smokes! A dealer that is selling optional equipment for the same or better prizes than the E-market! I stand corrected. Al, if you've stumbled onto a dealer like that, then take advantage of it while you can.

  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    that the 5-door HR-V is about the same physical size of the Forester or the Rav4, judging by the pictures. However the Forester here in North America is blessed with a terrific 2.5L engine. In other markets it come with a 2.0L engine, which still larger than the HR-V's 1.6L engine.

    Bob
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    If the next CR-V is indeed larger than the current model, with a 2.4L engine as rumored, do you think Honda might also someday bring the smaller HR-V over, but with a larger 2.0L engine instead?

    I think it could happen.

    Bob
  • snowchiefsnowchief Member Posts: 16
    Has anyone heard of Honda putting adjustable gas and brake pedals in the new CR-V (I'm 6'6")? Also, what might the horsepower be with the 2.4L engine?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.