Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
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