Snowchief - I haven't heard any more rumors about a 2.4L engine since we first saw those two related articles a month or two back. I would think that if those rumors were legit, we'd have seen more about it by now. To answer your question, it had been rumored to make about 165 hp and 160 ftlbs. Which would be ideal, IMHO.
It wouldn't surprize me if they stick with the i-VTEC 2.0 that can be found in the Honda Stream. 140 ftlbs and 154-156 hp would be enough boost to keep the CR-V above the RAV. Especially since the torque powerband is so flat. The RAV4 is most likely Honda's target, not the Liberty, Escape, or Sante Fe.
Bob - the HR-V is actually a bit smaller than the RAV4 and Forester. The inside is pretty cramped and it doesn't have enough cargo space. It's based on a mini-car platform. I have doubts that it could cut it here in the states. It's designed to be more like the fuel sipping lifestyle vehicles from Europe.
is marketed more as a "lifestyle" vehicle, than a mini-SUV. So, I could see Honda bringing it over, and marketing it thusly.
Also, another possibility, would be to market it under the Acura label, and give it the full RSX treatment. Now that could be really interesting... Don't forget that BMW will be bring over a smaller X-3 shortly, and Acura may want something to compete with it. The HR-V platform, properly modified could do just the trick.
I've always felt Acura should "VTECize" a CR-V, slap on 16" rims, rear disc brakes, a moonroof and heated seats and they'd sell like crazy.
The HR-V is too small for US customers, and for once I fully agree with Diploid - that thing is scary looking. I guess I'm getting old because I find the Honda Model X concept (suicide style doors and all) downright silly.
No surprise, my tastes and Bob are usually the opposite. Hard to believe we own the same vehicle!
A Mustang with lockers? Hmm, I'm not at all familiar with those, but my guess is they applied the term loosely on a rear limited-slip differential.
Of course, Mustangs have no traction anyway (I owned one), so I guess it simply wouldn't matter.
Juice, I'd bet they thought about it already. We'll see if that happens after the redesign.
Lockers found their way onto many cars for the strip. You just need to go straight anyway. Better traction works on pavement too, if one has the power to spin a tire off the rim.
<<No surprise, my tastes and Bob are usually the opposite. Hard to believe we own the same vehicle!>>
Only when it comes to styling. Otherwise we're pretty much in sync on most other items.
As to styling, I more often than not embrace new, and sometimes controversial design ideas. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with new design solutions, once I understand what the designer had in mind. I guess it all comes down to my training as a graphic designer, as a design educator, and having been in the design business for 30 or more years. I just look at things from a different perspective than perhaps most people.
I tend to prefer European design over Asian or American design for that very reason. If that the case why do I like Honda and Acura styling, as it's Asian? Of all the Asian auto companies, IMO, Honda/Acura comes the closest to that of European design. I think the HR-V is very European in feel. It almost feels like it was designed first and foremost for the European market, not the Asian market. I think it's clever, and the word "scary" would not be a word I would use to describe it.
The problem with Acura is that whatever SUV they bring over will just be a badged version of a CR-V. And if they do make it differently, I hope it would live up to the Acura nameplate, as well as its price. I'm guessing Acura would sell it for 25K. AND I hope they don't bring over the tail lights from the CR-V.
BMW's X3 is different from its X5. I think it will outhandle the Acura CR-V just on the basis that the X5 handles better than the MDX.
OK, then, explain what Pontiac had in mind when...
Nah, let's not even mention it. ;-)
I really liked the TL and Odyssey sketches, even though the production models were toned down (too much, IMO). They still look nice, and both are selling like hot cakes.
I liked Hondas back around 1990, when the CR-X and the square Prelude were around. I think they've lost some edge since then, and note that their replacements have been cancelled (Del Sol and new Prelude), so somebody must agree with me.
The sketches for the 2002 CR-V look nice, actually. One of my pet peeves with the current model is the exposed hinges on the trunk, which I'm sure they'll fix. Just drop the Lumina APV taillights, my other pet peeve, because it leaves the lower corners of the car looking naked, if you will.
Other than that, the new Civic styling would probably look better on the CR-V than it does on the Civic.
For Subaru, I feel the opposite way. The new Impreza styling would not translate well to the boxy Forester body, so I hope it differs dramatically.
"... a CR-V, slap on 16" rims, rear disc brakes,..."
And most serious SUV's usually put on 15" rims, often downsizing from 16" ones.
...
"A Mustang with lockers? Hmm, I'm not at all familiar with those, but my guess is they applied the term loosely on a rear limited-slip differential."
No! They had Detroit Lockers. This applies the power to the pavement both in straight lines and when cornering. The beauty of lockers is the free one just spins on corners if necessary.
Hi, I own a 2001 crv with 4000 miles. When im on the highway i notice the engine racing when the car shifts from 2nd to 3rd in my automatic transmission. It seems the rpms are not coming down after the shift but seem to rev a minute or two. this happens mostly on hills at around 70 mph. Has anyone else experienced this in your automatic transmission?
To be fair to Acura, I don't think they were aiming for handling when they designed the MDX. Packaging was clearly a higher priority. The Bimmer hauls asphalt, but cargo and passenger room are rather pitiful for the price, IMO.
The MDX hauls people and cargo far better, and costs less to boot. So an Acura CR-V could offer a lower cost, spacious and luxurious alternative to the X3, which will probably cost what an MDX does anyway.
Need a little more info. Is there a pause between shifts where the revs increase? Or does it seem to rev higher and hold the gear prior to the shift. Grade Logic can impart some strange feelings when it comes time to shift. The tranny will hold gears longer when you are accelerating up a hill to avoid "hunting" for gears. It feels like it wants to shift but doesn't. This behavior is normal (but different from other automatics you may have driven). If you have the revving between shifts, that is not normal.
If you have anything you are not sure about, go back to the dealer and have them take a looksee.
The grade logic you describe seems to hit the nail on the head. I notice it mostly on hills. Can I assume the reving of the engine for a minute or two will not damage the engine?
I don't think that 16" rims on a car-based vehicle with double wishbones is at all like 18" rims on a full-frame truck with solid axles. Not at all.
The CR-V can be made more sporty without losing any utility whatsoever. I found no significant trade offs by going from 15" to 16" rims. The ride is actually better because it's less bouncy, and handling also improved. It was a huge improvement.
Besides, Acura buyers are probably even less likely to go off road vs. Honda owners.
we're in complete agreement! However... for maybe different reasons.
I applaud GM for trying to be different with this vehicle, unfortunately they did it at the expense of function. The sloped rear roof cuts down on utility. The goofy rear window that accompanies that is not as easy to look out of as a traditional rear window. They tried to make it look "tough" with an bold aggressive front, but everybody knew that it was really just Montana underneath.
I could forgive the "ugliness" if the final product really made a positive contribution to future automotive design. Unfortunately, because it's ugly, and that it really doesn't break any worthwhile new ground in terms vehicle design or engineering (yes, there are some innovative packaging items), it's loser.
If you're going to make a bold visual statement like the Montana, you had better have some equally bold (and convincing) arguments as to why it's a better design. The Aztek can't do that.
Again, here juice and I disagree (but we're still friends, aren't we?). I like those high-mounted taillights. They're very easy to see, and are more likely "not" to get damaged in a rear fender bender because they're so high.
But they look like giant tri-colored peppermint candy sticks stuck to the back of the car.
I think tail lights like those from the Acura MDX and 2001.5 VW Passat are better looking.
Also, instead of a picnice table, they should put the spare tire in that space so the CR-V could have a lift up tailgate. I just hope they don't tack the spare on the bottom of the car like so many other SUVs---changing a flat would be such a B!
Im writing this update on my 2000 White CR-V SE that was LEASED 13 months ago. I have put on 38,000 miles on this vehicle without one problem. Just after I got the car I had to start traveling for work and that is the reason for the miles. I love the cr-v but need advise on what to do. I am in a bad situation because I should have 13000 miles and have 38,000. Should I 1. not worry about it and just drive the car. (and worry abt it at lease end) 2. should I trade it in for something with a low interest rate buy. 3. Try to refinance the lease as soon as I can. If i did #2 it pro
Everyone that has been in the car loves it and thinks it is a wonderful vehicle.
TIRES: Now approaching almost 40K on the factory tires I need to start thinking about replacements. (the factorys should last for 50) Looking at michilian x-ones. Also keep the stock tire size or up it to 16's
What do you think I have not posted much lately but have read all the interesting conversation.
Thanks
Jack
P.S. In responds to some of the topics
I like the high monted tail lamps. I cant wait to see what the 2002 CR-V brings us. When I find any information i will let all of you know. The one thing that my dealer showed was the new colors and interior for the vehicle. And Yes you can get side air bags (can someone tell me why they are not standard). They will go back to the lx and ex trims and no se for awile. I like the leather in my cr-v so if I get a 2nd I would have to have it custom done. The new red is i think the same red that was used in the 2000 accord se. So thats a plus. (he gives me alot of information because I see him alot no problems just oil changes.
Good Eve to All, I was looking at the 01, but have heard major changes may be in line for 02. As anyone heard anything. I can buy the 01 but with the 02 around the corner it may be best to wait. I've heard it may be a more powerful engine? All help would be appreciated. Thanks RonP
how did you manage to put 38K miles on a leased vehicle so fast? I think you're pooched and you best be looking at the buy-out. Alternatively, many dealers will give you 'grace' on over-miles if you buy or lease from them when your current lease is up - whether they will go for the type of milage you have Mark is difficult to tell.
We have a 2000 CR-V which has been flawless. We were in Florida last week and almost got rearended when someone behind me wasn't watching the road. Fortunately I was watching the rear mirror and hit the gas just in time (I was preparing to parallel park). The lack of torque with the car loaded (2 adults, 2 kids, assorted junk) plus air was pretty scary. They have to improve this aspect of an otherwise great vehicle.
i saw hr-v in japan, they are very cute little trucks buzzing around town. they do remind me of the volvo sport wagon but much higher and little bit more round. they sell like hot cakes in europe. most people i know consider them women's car. OHIOGOODGUYS -- have you considered mileage roll back? lol
when i brought my car over at my grand ma's she asked me why i had christmas lights on the back (she was reffering to the tail lights) I am really thinking of getting half clear tail lights, i think they would improve the chritmas lights appearance.
about 16 inch rims though, we had the same discussion in the civic forum. apparantely 16 inch rims would decrease the performance bue to higher inertia. even though the circumference of the tire would still be the same as the original wheel and tire combo, the fact that the mass is farther from the center in creases inertia (I=mr^2) by increasing the radius (from 15 inch to 16 inch) your are increasing the rolling inertia exponenentially.
extended warranty -- i had extended warranty on my civic, and when i traded it in i got most of the money back. (paid $650 2 years ago, got $480 back) the lowest price i was qouted for 6 years/100 000 mile coverage for cr-v (any new cr-v under 2 years old/24 000 miles) is $730 with $50 deductible, this is for honda care warranty from american honda finance corp. I am not sure whether i should get it, but the dealer i get the qoute from promices that the price will be the same until december 31 this year. IMO, according to murphy's law the day after my warranty expires something will happen, most likely i will buy it by the end of this year. you don't have to get warranty at the time of purchase nor the same dealer you bought the car from.
when I started my career as a graphic designer, one of the first things I learned upon making a presentation to a client was try not to get into a discussion about about the design, or at least keep it to a minimum. Instead concentrate—from a business standpoint—why this design is good for the client's organization. In other words, if possible, avoid discussions that center around "pretty," and focus on "results."
So, when I comment on car design, I take that same approach. To me it's much more important if the design works (from a function standpoint), than if it looks good. That's true whether the discussion centers around a taillight, or the whole vehicle.
If it functions first, eventually the "beauty" reveals itself.
I'll try to explain nicely. B is short for a word that rhymes with switch. Pooched, in this context, I believe means the same as "not in a good position" or getting the short end of the stick, to put it kindly.
You're "not in a good position" on that lease. Wow, that's a lot of miles in one year. There's not much you can do right now. You could try to sell it outright, but it's likely it would not be near worth what your "payoff" is, so you'd lose some big money. If you keep on going like you are now, say you are 50k over when you turn it in, at .10 a mile, that would be $5,000! You might just have to ride the lease out and consider buying it at the end of the lease, then you wouldn't have to actually pay for those miles. But, by then, it will have so many miles, you may not want to buy it (and you'd be paying a lot for a "used" car). Mileage restrictions should be carefully looked at before leasing, make sure you'll be within or least close to the allowed mileage at the end. If you know you're going to go way over, then purchasing the vehicle is usually a better deal.
If you have 38k miles now, you're on pace to do 70k miles in 2 years. You have a 12k/year allowance, or 24k miles total, assuming it's a 2 year lease.
Your mileage penatly would be a whopping 46000 miles times whatever negotiated charge you have for excess mileage. Some go as high as 15 cents per mile, which means you'd owe almost $7 grand!
You could stop driving it, but that's not exactly a solution. Instead, keep driving it, then buy it for the negotiated residual value.
dudka: that's the first time I've heard an argument against bigger wheels focus on inertia. Usually the biggest concern is extra unsprung weight, which your suspension is not designed to handle.
But alloys are lighter than steel. If you have an EX now, the stock 15" alloys are probably lighter than all but the most expensive 16" forged BBS wheels.
But if you have 15" steelies, many 16" alloys weigh the same or even less, so you reduce unsprung weight.
I can see going from 13" to 17" on a Civic being a big issue with inertia, but a 16" wheel has its rim only 0.5" further from the center vs. a 15" wheel, not enough to be an issue.
At a stop lite I at times have my foot on the brake,and foot on the accelerator,very little on each. With my foot ever so slightly on the brake, the light changes and I proceed forward,with out completely lifting my foot from the brake it feels as tho, the rear differential is engageing.Can this be?
Somehow you're "tricking" the on-demand 4WD into thinking that traction is slipping, and it engages? I know that sounds goofy, but it could be a possibility.
I have a 2000 CR-V. I was thinking of purchasing the fog lamps from hondacuraworld.com and installing the lamps. I was wondering if anyone has done the installation. Is it difficult? What should I look out for? Is it worth it?
It would be nice if you could leave the engine running in park and lock the vehicle,then use the remote to unlock it. Now I have to get a spare key made.More keys to carry, just what I need!
The rear seats on my CRV seem to fold flat.Just pull the seat cushion foward,unlock the back rest,and fold it down.(I removed the head rests) Unless you 6'9" and have the seat all the way back. I am 5'9" and that seems to work for me as I fold it down to haul golf clubs,on a hand cart.
What kind of mileage are you geting with your CRV awd automatic in town only with the a/c on? I am getting 20 mpg city driveing no freway with the a/c on 90% of the time. I have 1K on the odometer,seem to drive senseable,is 22 as advertized for real.Thanks Tom F.I
like tomf11 mentioned the seats in the cr-v do fold flat, you just have to lift up the coushion, remove the head rest and the fold it. makes a perfectly flat floor. you can look up the in-between-seats-console for minivans at k-mart, i think it even has a tv and vcr in the back of it for rear passengers. some of the aftermarket ar-rest/storage even feature a removable cooler. i saw a gel packed storage console i europe, it is some special gel, whatever you put in there will not sink, nor move, and when you take it out gel stays in the box and leaves no traces on items placed in there. kind of spooky but cool.
Almost without fail, I get 21-22 mpg in town with the A/C running 100% of the time. (One word: Houston) For highway driving, keep in mind that the CR-V nearly has the aerodynamics of a brick, and that I'm probably slicing through the some of thickest air in the U.S. near sea level. On road trips at 70 mph, I can expect 25 mpg every time. Above that (75-85 mph), fuel economy can slip to 23 mpg or so. My record tank was around 26.5 mpg, scored on a fishing trip that had me winding though many country backroads at 55-65 mph. I have read even better figures from owners who live where there are inclines to conquer and the atmosphere is seemingly thinner. I have an '00 EX auto that is about to cross the 22500-mile threshold.
I was hoping the seats would get flat. Yesterday when I test drove an EX, we removed the headrests and folded the seats. The 'front' portion of the rear cargo area was still about 1.5" higher than the cargo area near the hatch. I am hoping for a good, flat surface so that I can put my dog cage back there. Although the cage could fit readily back there, I'd rather not have a 'slope' for the pups.
Thanks also for the advice on checking Walmart for a armrest/storage.
tomf11, while your engine is breaking in it will not get optimum gas mileage. You should see your mileage gradually increase over the next few thousand miles and you should easily achieve 22mpg if you drive as you say.
Mary doesn't seem to provide any useful info at all. She realy ought to elaborate if she wants any help.
In Lorraine's case, I doubt the tranny is really on back order. It's probably made in Japan and will just take a while to arrive. I'm sure the dealer doesn't stock spare trannies around their shop.
That stinks about the rental car. I would look for a dealership that has loaners. No paper work, no fuss. When our 626 was in for service, we got a new 626 as a loaner for free. All they asked for was a photo copy of my wife's drivers license.
Comments
It wouldn't surprize me if they stick with the i-VTEC 2.0 that can be found in the Honda Stream. 140 ftlbs and 154-156 hp would be enough boost to keep the CR-V above the RAV. Especially since the torque powerband is so flat. The RAV4 is most likely Honda's target, not the Liberty, Escape, or Sante Fe.
Bob - the HR-V is actually a bit smaller than the RAV4 and Forester. The inside is pretty cramped and it doesn't have enough cargo space. It's based on a mini-car platform. I have doubts that it could cut it here in the states. It's designed to be more like the fuel sipping lifestyle vehicles from Europe.
Diploid - Okay.
Bob
Also, another possibility, would be to market it under the Acura label, and give it the full RSX treatment. Now that could be really interesting... Don't forget that BMW will be bring over a smaller X-3 shortly, and Acura may want something to compete with it. The HR-V platform, properly modified could do just the trick.
Bob
http://www.honda.co.jp/auto-lineup/cr_v/photo_lib/
Forgive my ignorance, but is this actually a new model or just the Japanese version of the '01...?
Thanks.
Bob, I let you pass on the Quiz for now, but if you need the extra credit, you can take it later.
The HR-V is too small for US customers, and for once I fully agree with Diploid - that thing is scary looking. I guess I'm getting old because I find the Honda Model X concept (suicide style doors and all) downright silly.
No surprise, my tastes and Bob are usually the opposite. Hard to believe we own the same vehicle!
A Mustang with lockers? Hmm, I'm not at all familiar with those, but my guess is they applied the term loosely on a rear limited-slip differential.
Of course, Mustangs have no traction anyway (I owned one), so I guess it simply wouldn't matter.
-juice
Lockers found their way onto many cars for the strip. You just need to go straight anyway. Better traction works on pavement too, if one has the power to spin a tire off the rim.
Lincoln lockers anyone?
Only when it comes to styling. Otherwise we're pretty much in sync on most other items.
As to styling, I more often than not embrace new, and sometimes controversial design ideas. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with new design solutions, once I understand what the designer had in mind. I guess it all comes down to my training as a graphic designer, as a design educator, and having been in the design business for 30 or more years. I just look at things from a different perspective than perhaps most people.
I tend to prefer European design over Asian or American design for that very reason. If that the case why do I like Honda and Acura styling, as it's Asian? Of all the Asian auto companies, IMO, Honda/Acura comes the closest to that of European design. I think the HR-V is very European in feel. It almost feels like it was designed first and foremost for the European market, not the Asian market. I think it's clever, and the word "scary" would not be a word I would use to describe it.
Bob
BMW's X3 is different from its X5. I think it will outhandle the Acura CR-V just on the basis that the X5 handles better than the MDX.
Nah, let's not even mention it. ;-)
I really liked the TL and Odyssey sketches, even though the production models were toned down (too much, IMO). They still look nice, and both are selling like hot cakes.
I liked Hondas back around 1990, when the CR-X and the square Prelude were around. I think they've lost some edge since then, and note that their replacements have been cancelled (Del Sol and new Prelude), so somebody must agree with me.
The sketches for the 2002 CR-V look nice, actually. One of my pet peeves with the current model is the exposed hinges on the trunk, which I'm sure they'll fix. Just drop the Lumina APV taillights, my other pet peeve, because it leaves the lower corners of the car looking naked, if you will.
Other than that, the new Civic styling would probably look better on the CR-V than it does on the Civic.
For Subaru, I feel the opposite way. The new Impreza styling would not translate well to the boxy Forester body, so I hope it differs dramatically.
-juice
And most serious SUV's usually put on 15" rims, often downsizing from 16" ones.
...
"A Mustang with lockers? Hmm, I'm not at all familiar with those, but my guess is they applied the term loosely on a rear limited-slip differential."
No! They had Detroit Lockers. This applies the power to the pavement both in straight lines and when cornering. The beauty of lockers is the free one just spins on corners if necessary.
The MDX hauls people and cargo far better, and costs less to boot. So an Acura CR-V could offer a lower cost, spacious and luxurious alternative to the X3, which will probably cost what an MDX does anyway.
-juice
I knew when we mentioned Mustangs that we would be talking about wheels spinning. Traction is a foreign word to those pony cars.
-juice
If you have anything you are not sure about, go back to the dealer and have them take a looksee.
The CR-V can be made more sporty without losing any utility whatsoever. I found no significant trade offs by going from 15" to 16" rims. The ride is actually better because it's less bouncy, and handling also improved. It was a huge improvement.
Besides, Acura buyers are probably even less likely to go off road vs. Honda owners.
-juice
I applaud GM for trying to be different with this vehicle, unfortunately they did it at the expense of function. The sloped rear roof cuts down on utility. The goofy rear window that accompanies that is not as easy to look out of as a traditional rear window. They tried to make it look "tough" with an bold aggressive front, but everybody knew that it was really just Montana underneath.
I could forgive the "ugliness" if the final product really made a positive contribution to future automotive design. Unfortunately, because it's ugly, and that it really doesn't break any worthwhile new ground in terms vehicle design or engineering (yes, there are some innovative packaging items), it's loser.
If you're going to make a bold visual statement like the Montana, you had better have some equally bold (and convincing) arguments as to why it's a better design. The Aztek can't do that.
Bob
Bob
I think tail lights like those from the Acura MDX and 2001.5 VW Passat are better looking.
Also, instead of a picnice table, they should put the spare tire in that space so the CR-V could have a lift up tailgate. I just hope they don't tack the spare on the bottom of the car like so many other SUVs---changing a flat would be such a B!
Should I 1. not worry about it and just drive the car. (and worry abt it at lease end)
2. should I trade it in for something with a low interest rate buy.
3. Try to refinance the lease as soon as I can.
If i did #2 it pro
Everyone that has been in the car loves it and thinks it is a wonderful vehicle.
TIRES: Now approaching almost 40K on the factory tires I need to start thinking about replacements. (the factorys should last for 50) Looking at michilian x-ones. Also keep the stock tire size or up it to 16's
What do you think I have not posted much lately but have read all the interesting conversation.
Thanks
Jack
P.S. In responds to some of the topics
I like the high monted tail lamps.
I cant wait to see what the 2002 CR-V brings us. When I find any information i will let all of you know. The one thing that my dealer showed was the new colors and interior for the vehicle. And Yes you can get side air bags (can someone tell me why they are not standard). They will go back to the lx and ex trims and no se for awile. I like the leather in my cr-v so if I get a 2nd I would have to have it custom done. The new red is i think the same red that was used in the 2000 accord se. So thats a plus. (he gives me alot of information because I see him alot no problems just oil changes.
Thanks
RonP
We have a 2000 CR-V which has been flawless. We were in Florida last week and almost got rearended when someone behind me wasn't watching the road. Fortunately I was watching the rear mirror and hit the gas just in time (I was preparing to parallel park). The lack of torque with the car loaded (2 adults, 2 kids, assorted junk) plus air was pretty scary. They have to improve this aspect of an otherwise great vehicle.
OHIOGOODGUYS -- have you considered mileage roll back? lol
when i brought my car over at my grand ma's she asked me why i had christmas lights on the back (she was reffering to the tail lights) I am really thinking of getting half clear tail lights, i think they would improve the chritmas lights appearance.
about 16 inch rims though, we had the same discussion in the civic forum. apparantely 16 inch rims would decrease the performance bue to higher inertia. even though the circumference of the tire would still be the same as the original wheel and tire combo, the fact that the mass is farther from the center in creases inertia (I=mr^2) by increasing the radius (from 15 inch to 16 inch) your are increasing the rolling inertia exponenentially.
extended warranty -- i had extended warranty on my civic, and when i traded it in i got most of the money back. (paid $650 2 years ago, got $480 back) the lowest price i was qouted for 6 years/100 000 mile coverage for cr-v (any new cr-v under 2 years old/24 000 miles) is $730 with $50 deductible, this is for honda care warranty from american honda finance corp. I am not sure whether i should get it, but the dealer i get the qoute from promices that the price will be the same until december 31 this year. IMO, according to murphy's law the day after my warranty expires something will happen, most likely i will buy it by the end of this year. you don't have to get warranty at the time of purchase nor the same dealer you bought the car from.
#1728 Easy to see... by diploid
"...changing a flat would be such a B!"
#1732 38K? by zircon
"...I think you're pooched"
So, when I comment on car design, I take that same approach. To me it's much more important if the design works (from a function standpoint), than if it looks good. That's true whether the discussion centers around a taillight, or the whole vehicle.
If it functions first, eventually the "beauty" reveals itself.
Bob
Pooched, in this context, I believe means the same as "not in a good position" or getting the short end of the stick, to put it kindly.
You might just have to ride the lease out and consider buying it at the end of the lease, then you wouldn't have to actually pay for those miles. But, by then, it will have so many miles, you may not want to buy it (and you'd be paying a lot for a "used" car).
Mileage restrictions should be carefully looked at before leasing, make sure you'll be within or least close to the allowed mileage at the end. If you know you're going to go way over, then purchasing the vehicle is usually a better deal.
If you have 38k miles now, you're on pace to do 70k miles in 2 years. You have a 12k/year allowance, or 24k miles total, assuming it's a 2 year lease.
Your mileage penatly would be a whopping 46000 miles times whatever negotiated charge you have for excess mileage. Some go as high as 15 cents per mile, which means you'd owe almost $7 grand!
You could stop driving it, but that's not exactly a solution. Instead, keep driving it, then buy it for the negotiated residual value.
dudka: that's the first time I've heard an argument against bigger wheels focus on inertia. Usually the biggest concern is extra unsprung weight, which your suspension is not designed to handle.
But alloys are lighter than steel. If you have an EX now, the stock 15" alloys are probably lighter than all but the most expensive 16" forged BBS wheels.
But if you have 15" steelies, many 16" alloys weigh the same or even less, so you reduce unsprung weight.
I can see going from 13" to 17" on a Civic being a big issue with inertia, but a 16" wheel has its rim only 0.5" further from the center vs. a 15" wheel, not enough to be an issue.
-juice
Bob
Many thanks for your thoughts.
The biggest drawbacks that I see with the CRV are the lack of a armrest/storage box between the front seats and that the rear seats do not fold flat.
Is there an after-market storage 'box' that can be installed to function both as an armrest and storage container?
For highway driving, keep in mind that the CR-V nearly has the aerodynamics of a brick, and that I'm probably slicing through the some of thickest air in the U.S. near sea level. On road trips at 70 mph, I can expect 25 mpg every time. Above that (75-85 mph), fuel economy can slip to 23 mpg or so. My record tank was around 26.5 mpg, scored on a fishing trip that had me winding though many country backroads at 55-65 mph. I have read even better figures from owners who live where there are inclines to conquer and the atmosphere is seemingly thinner.
I have an '00 EX auto that is about to cross the 22500-mile threshold.
I was hoping the seats would get flat. Yesterday when I test drove an EX, we removed the headrests and folded the seats. The 'front' portion of the rear cargo area was still about 1.5" higher than the cargo area near the hatch. I am hoping for a good, flat surface so that I can put my dog cage back there. Although the cage could fit readily back there, I'd rather not have a 'slope' for the pups.
Thanks also for the advice on checking Walmart for a armrest/storage.
power loss
transmission problem
and a "Honda CRV crank shaft problems" under www.thecomplaintstation.com
feedback from anybody?
In Lorraine's case, I doubt the tranny is really on back order. It's probably made in Japan and will just take a while to arrive. I'm sure the dealer doesn't stock spare trannies around their shop.
That stinks about the rental car. I would look for a dealership that has loaners. No paper work, no fuss. When our 626 was in for service, we got a new 626 as a loaner for free. All they asked for was a photo copy of my wife's drivers license.
-juice