That would be foolish, since the CR-V is one hot selling model (even after 4- only 1 of the new car-based SUVs has surpassed it in sales). For them to worry about the Honda badged MDX, which ir won't know for sure just how well it would do in the market, is just plain silly.
Picture- If you notice in the back where the lights are, there are indents further down to suggest that the lights could be further elongated (like in the spy drawing) downwards.
The rear spare tire looks completely different in this picture's view. It looks integrated into the rear swing out gate as opposed to just being tacked on to it. But the picture from the Japanese teaser photo clearly shows a space between the tires and the rear door...
The more you look at it, the more the front reminds you of a RAV4, doesn't it? Thick C & D pillars- apparently it doesn't matter since the Escape is selling so well. I think that's why Honda hasn't taken into consideration the potential blind spot(s). Looking at the sales number for the Escape, Honda assumes customers would trade in superior road views for aesthetic values.
I was a bit surprised to see CRV getting 4-speed automatic, since Honda will probably move to a five speed automatic transmission on most of its $20K plus vehicles. May be, in couple of years.
Not sure if 6-speed manual would be better over a 5-speed manual though (atleast as long as I don't see the relatively short fifth on the 2002 CRV). But a sixth could allow CRV to improve gas mileage though (by 2-3 mpg).
I have really enjoyed reading everyone's comments on the new cr-v. I thought I would add my 2 cents. It is interesting to note that their is a crease in the rear sheetmetal on the second picture showing the rear of the cr-v. I may be totally out to lunch, but I think the tail lights might actually extend down to the bumper. Take a look at the way the metal flares out at the bottom where it meets the bumper. Just an observation.
We have a 2001 crv ex and are expecting a baby soon. Does anyone know of a baby seat you would recommend for the center of the backseat? We have our eye on convertible seats(newborn,infant,toddler). Safety,of course, is most important to us but we also want something that fits well in a crv. We appreciate any suggestions you may have. Also, how does the real time 4wd do in the snow? We go to the mountains a lot, but the crv hasn't seen snow yet. We were hoping chains would never again be necessary. Thanks.
I think with a rear design like that, it minimizes the damage to the car in cash of a rear bumper accident (in which case, the new CR-V doesn't seem to have a bumper).
It's just like in those recent crash tests where the Suzuki XL-7's rear spare went flying through the rear glass when it reversed into a pole. With a piece of metal behind the spare, it might not break the glass.
Although I don't think that means that the new CR-V will be any safer in bumper crashes, considering that it barely has a bumper.
The wife and I use a Britax carseat in our CR-V and the fit does very well. Plus in the new 'Vs, I believe you also have latch points which the Britax models utilize further securing the seat. Hope this helps.
I also noticed that the taillight does extend all the way down to the bumper line. The reason it is not so apparent at first, is because that section of the taillight assembly is clear or frosty, and sort of blends in with the silvery color of the body. That section of the tailight also includes the back-up lights. I also noticed the body flares away from the tailight in that area, following the the crease along the profile.
In the British spy photographs it is apparent that Honda did NOT flip the opening of the rear tailgate. There had been many rumors that the 2002 CRV would have its tailgate open curbside. Any observations?
The RT4WD does just fine in snow. If you only experience light snow where you live an all-season tire should do just fine. From the mountains comment it sounds like you may live in So. California. You should be fine. If you live where you drive in snow daily for several months of the year, you might consider a set of winter tires on steel rims.
I don't think the taillights extend all the way to the bumper. I think the crease is just a styling detail. It does, however, look like they've separated the backup lights from the brake and turn signals...at least that's what the square of white down at the door handle level appears to be.
I know there has been a lot of discussion about which direction the tailgate opens, but I think it was just a lot of wishful thinking that the door would open the other way. I so rarely park along a curb that it's never bothered me, either with my CR-V or my previous vehicle that had a similar rear tailgate.
theracoon: I didn't know that the Xterra's irregular rear window shape was to accomodate their first-aid kit. I do know that it strikes me as a nice, distinctive bit of design that sets the Xterra apart. I wonder if maybe Honda thought so too, and 'borrowed' it.
Hey guys, posting pictures that are copyrighted (such as the above) are a no-no, unless you own the copyright, or it's a public picture. Instead, please provide the URL of the images so that other TH'ers can view in in seperate browser windows.
First-Aid Kit Tucked inside the rear bulge, the available first-aid kit has bandages and blankets, tweezers and scissors, antiseptics, adhesives, even a tick-removal kit.
Okay, I give. The lines of the tailights in the photo match the ones from that drawing. In fact, there are a number of details from the drawing that match the photos.
So maybe the lower portion is masked with duct tape in the photos.
I doubt that the bump in the rear gate is a first aid kit. What are they going to put in there, bandages? The bump in the XTerra has to be a good 10inch by 10inch square. The one on the CR-V looks like the size of a TV remote control.
I think its real purpose is to act as something to push off against (using your thumb)when trying to open the door handle on the tailgate, since it now pops out, as opposed to being hidden under jagged ridges like in current CR-V.
Shelley- interesting point. If there's a black CR-V parked right next to the one in the picture, how come the only pictures we've seen so far are the ones of the green CR-V?
I too believe that Honda wants us to see these pictures, and most likely they're trying to throw us off track. All the things that we're complaining about (small tires, what is going on with the taillights, engine specs & performance, etc.) probably has already been dealt with, and Honda is just waiting to go off with a bang when the CR-V finally hits the market. Totally surprising us, as well as others who had no idea a redesign was due.
Now that better pics are out, I'm comparing them all. Here's a few interesting tid bits. (Well, I think they're interesting.)
The spy drawings, show a tiny pic at the top of the page. You can see a white CR-V undergoing snow testing. Presumably the drawing is based on these spy photographs. The white CR-V has body colored bumpers, b/c door handles, and no spare on the back. (also note the pics of the bumpers in the top corner... aftermarket?)
On the drawings, you can also see a character line that stretches from the nose to the rear and passes through the door handles. The line is better defined on the drawing. Now look back at the photo and you'll see the same line. From the rear angle, it gives it a very chiseled look.
There are also short, vertical striations under the rear bumper on the drawing. You'll see them in the photo once you know they're there.
I've also noted that the hood is higher on the new model. As Bing noted, there are reflectors in the rear bumper, for better visibility at night. There are also mud flaps on the back, but, once again, not on the front.
Here's an interesting design detail in the rear door. The current CR-V's door spans the entire width of the vehicle. This makes it extend pretty far back when opened. The door on the new model starts and stops between the tail lights. It'll be about 3-4 inches shorter.
to say i'm disappointed by the "head-in-the-sand" honda exec who ok'd the damage-prone, incovenient,rear-view-blocking,much-criticized, same-as-before tailgate/spare design on the new Cr-v is an understatement. Some other observations: xterra rear window (of course, the xterra has a proper, upward-swinging tailgate & no external spare), saturn vue rear bumper (of course, the VUE has a proper, upward-swinging tailgate & no external spare), volvo cross-country tail lights (of course, the volvo has a proper, upward-swinging tailgate & no external spare), forester roof rails (of course, the forester has a proper, upward-swinging tailgate & no external spare)...... honda, if you're going to "borrow" why not go all the way and give us a proper, upward-swinging tailgate & no external spare.
I agree. They should at least reverse it and make the glass pop up like the Liberty's, a one-step operation. Oh, and hide those ugly hinges, which would look out of place in a modern Hyundai.
I can't tell from the photos if the hinges will still be there. They're on the far side.
I know I may be in a minority, but I happen to like the spare tire mounted on the tailgate.
First, since the tailgate opens to the driver side, it's much more convenient for me. I walk to the back and open the tailgate. Simple. Yes, sometimes, rarely, I have to parallel park at a curb and it's somewhat of a hindrance. But far more frequently I open the door in a parking lot, and then opening on the driver's side is better.
Second, I prefer the extra storage under the rear deck. Remember that the RT4WD requires a full sized spare because of the way it works, so it's not possible to use on of those "donuts".
Third, the tire doesn't block that much of the view, and the large side mirrors help. And with the new design it appears that the tire may be mounted lower, blocking even less of the view out the back window.
Fourth, damage? What damage? I don't back into things. And if someone rear ends my vehicle yes, there is a possibility of greater damage. That's what insurance is for. Either their insurance pays for their stupidity, or mine does (that's what the un-/under-insured motorist coverage is for) and then sues them to recoup the costs.
Actually, you could use a donut spare as long as it was the same diameter as the other tires. RT4WD reacts on rotational differences so a thinner tire may be possible.
I heard about a JDM CR-V that acutally doesn't have a rear mounted spare. Is that right?
Actually, if you look at the photo of the "new" crv (we are assuming that its what the 2002 model will look like), I don't think there are any hinges on the right side of the lower part of the rear door...could it be a swing-down? like a tailgate perhaps? Just something to think about...
Thanks for clarifying my statement. The circumference of the spare has to be the same as the rest of the tires. A thinner "donut" tire with the same circumference would work fine, although you'd still lose the under deck storage.
Add me to the unpopular list of folks who prefer a rear gate that swings to the left. I also like the looks of the rear mounted spare, but I would prefer that there were an option to have it located under the floor.
Kens - Yep. The JDM model called the Fullmark has the spare located under the table.
i hope, at least as juice suggests, that the door hinges are hidden this time too. heck, even my '93 sidekick's hinges are hidden. now that i've released some of my frustration, i suppose i may be able to live with the new/old rear door design but a swing up hatch, for me, anyway, would be so much easier to live with. & yes, there is a jdm cr-v (current version) without a rear mounted spare. they even went to the trouble of changing the location of the license plate to the middle of the tailgate. i'd post a picture but everyone seems to get whacked by drew for doing that. go to the honda japan site & hunt around for the cr-v fullmark version & you should be able to find a pic. btw, on the "new" cr-v "teaser site, the sketch of the fullmark version also shows no external spare. the rest of the new 'rv should be ok......better power & torque, maybe a 5 speed auto.....sounds like we're getting the "stream" engine, so probably tranny as well....more space, comfort, economy, mdx-derived real-time?, better crash protection (from the front, anyway)....hope it's priced reasonably as well......styling, while nothing earth-shattering, is already starting to make the current version appear "old" to me. ....now, with all the aftermarket mods, body kits etc out there, do you think anybody would do a swing up tailgate modification for the cr-v?! i'd be first in line.... michael
One of the rumors out there is that the '02 CR-V will have a modified version of the same RT4WD. I fogot which link this rumor comes from . Anyone have thoughts on this?
Someone posted that maybe the CR-V would get the VTM4 from the MDX, but this isn't likely, IHMO. However, it might be possible that we'll see a lock feature for low speeds. Then again, Honda may have made it more fuel efficient, smaller and lighter, or perhaps offered in different colors! What do you think?
Actually, replacement. Since the tailgate metal is only the lower 1/2 of the tailgate, you'd have to replace the glass and swing out door with a single new piece with hinges at the top.
I agree with the Racoon in regards to the rear swing gate - I like it like in the current set up.
As for the hinges, I don't mind either. They've never rusted and as long as it keeps opening and closing fine, I cannot complain.
I do object to the new rear bumper - or the lack of one. From the pictures, there doesn't appear to be much there for crash protection besides the tire. Call me old fashioned, but I sort of like having some buffer zone before a vehicle or wall comes into the passenger compartment...
Honda's really got a lot of expectations to meet, but personally, I haven't seen anything that makes me want to upgrade from my '99 model... hmmm.
I’m surprised there are not more questions about what is INSIDE the 2002CRV. I have a 1997 CRV with 43,000 miles on it. This was my first Honda purchase. What I like: extremely reliable (zero problems so far) good fuel economy Dislikes: location of window controls (most annoying feature on the vehicle and that is being kind). Window controls don’t light up, so good luck finding them at night as you pull up to a tollbooth. Road Noise – can’t fully enjoy your favorite CDs Seat comfort get a C plus, when you take long trips. What they need to do to stay with the competition Fix the dislikes. How about a mechanical seat the adjust horizontal and vertical (like the Jetta or Focus). Enhanced safety features like side air bags
The rear spare tire causes a lot of damage when hit from the rear. And now that the supposedly new CR-V has no bumper, the car seems a little unsafe. Unless, of course, they somehow made the rear tailgate very strong, and thus very heavy. I belong to the majority that does not want to see the continuation of the rear mounted spare. The CR-V isn't a hardcore off-roader, it doesn't need to look that rugged.
Insurance- who'd want to go through all that? I'd rather just have a car that wouldn't cause so much damage when involved in an accident.
>Dislikes: > Window controls don't light up, > so good luck finding them at night > as you pull up to a tollbooth.
They're lit in my the '99 EX, but I agree they're in an odd place.
> Seat comfort get a C plus, when you > take long trips. > How about a mechanical seat the adjust
The driver's seat in my '99 EX has 2 manual height adjustments. I've not had any problem with the comfort of the seats, even in a couple of 10 hour trips (Indy to Rochester, NY).
That's why everyone's been focused on the outside; upstateny2. It's the only thing we have a real clue about, thanks to the spy pics posted; the inside is still purely speculation.
It probably doesn't make you feel any better about your car, but Honda did fix that non-lighted-window-switch thing in '99.
>The rear spare tire causes a lot of damage >when hit from the rear.
I'll grant you that the spare on the back can result in more damage when you're rear ended then if it was under the rear deck. But if someone rear ends me the car is going in the shop anyway, so what do I care whether it's $500 or $2,500? The fact is my car is going to be in the shop. My deductible is the same and my insurance provides a rental car while it's being repaired.
>I belong to the majority that does not want >to see the continuation of the rear mounted >spare.
I must have missed the survey post showing the numbers that prove your view is in the majority. I would guess that some hate the spare on the back and some love it on the back, and the majority fall somewhere in between.
Diploid - I have to take a different point of view on another issue. The CR-V doesn't need to look like a hard core off-roader because it is one. It has to have off-road looks to make sales.
Another point would be the damage to the rear and the word "safety". The amount of money it takes to repair the rear end of a car has absolutely nothing to do with the safety of the occupants.
Lastly, we are all in the minority because we know enough to care. Auto manufactures don't sell cars to educated consumers. They sell to car dealers. Car dealers don't want to sell to educated consumers. They want to sell to nice dumb people who will spend lots of money for a cheap car. I'm sorry, but those folks are the majority.
My biggest gripe is the road noise. Not because it is such a terrible problem, but because it could've been easily fixed. I recently spent about $250 on sound dampening material. I'll let you know how it goes.
I've come to like the window switches. They don't get wet like door mounted switches and they are easy enough to reach. I am glad that I have the ones that glow at night. Without that, they would be tough to find.
Like the Racoon, I'm able to find a comfortable position in the driver's seat. The passenger's seat is not so good. My wife is fine with the driver's seat, but she doesn't care for the passenger's side.
Chianti red Pearl w/ saddle interior. Should be delivered sometime between Oct 30-Nov 15. Ordered 4WD EX version. It will have side airbags (standard on EX-optional on LX)
I have to disagree with you varmit. The amount of money that it takes to repair the damage is related to the occupant's safety. The more damage, the more likely that the occupant will be hurt. And now that the CR-V doesn't seem to have a bumper, the rear tire will absorb all the impact and can probably push the rear gate into the cargo area. Once the gate has been disconnected from its hinge, it might even fall inwards and pop the passengers in the head.
theracoon- many of the SUVs out there do not have the rear tire mounted on the back. There's the majority survey that you were questioning about. As for insurance, the amount of money isn't what matters. It's the inconvenience of having to go through all that. You are oversimplifying it when you say that all you do is put it in the shop and get a loaner car.
It's not that simple. The insurance company sends out its people to look at the damage to your car and figure out how much they think the damage is worth. They write out a check made to you so that you can pay for the damage. You bring it to a shop, and the mechanic disagrees with the price figure. You then play phone tag with your insurance company and they send someone out again to re-evaluate the damage costs. Finally they work with the mechanic and settle the amount for damage. In the meantime, your loaner car isn't exactly what you want it to be, but since the insurance company is paying for it, you really don't care. Until after 30 days, that is. Your insurance company says they'll pay for your loaner car only for a certain amount of time and only if the company loaning the car can supply the car to you within the insurance company's allowance (i.e. $30/day). After that period of time, you pay for the rental car. Meanwhile, it's taking forever for the mechanic to fix your car. You call everyday and they tell you the same thing, they'll call you when they're done. It's a big pain in the butt. And if you're at fault for the accident, you might even get dropped by your insurance company.
Sorry, but modern cars are designed with crumple zones. They intentionally "give up their life" in order to keep the passengers safe. And while the amount of damage to the vehicle may be significant, it's because the vehicle functioned as designed, not because of a decrease in passenger safety.
I'm sorry to say that we're just going to have to disagree on this. I can see from the way you state your opinion that it's a waste of band width to even discuss this with you. You believe what you believe and no one is going to change your mind. All the more power too you.
Although you should look for a different insurance company, as my experience has been different. But maybe things have changed since my last accident. In 1983. I was rear ended at a stop light. Light changed to green, traffic ahead of me didn't move (nor did I), but the guy behind me did. Bumper was toast as was the rear hatch. Called the insurance company, told them where I was taking it, they arranged for a rental car company to pick me up at the repair shop. Insurance company called me when the car was done. Rental car company dropped me off at the repair shop, I paid the deductible and drove off in my fixed car. The only thing I personally had to do was install a new bumper mounted CB antenna that had broken in the accident (and which the insurance paid for). And yes, I'm still with the same insurance company.
i agree that damage to a car and safety aren't really related. i've been rear-ended 3 times in my sidekick....twice, there was little or no damage as the vehicles' front ends that hit me were low enough so that they made contact with the bumper (my spare sits entirely above the bumper, not cut down into it like some more recent designs).....the third time, i was actually hit fron the side, the left front bumper of a massive tow truck just nicking the left rear corner of my back bummper, but then coming into contact with the spare, ripping it off the door, sending tire (damaged) and rim (damaged) rolling down the street, shattering the rear glass and destroying the rear door. the force actually spun the whole vehicle around. there was no damage to the vehicle save for a little dimple in the rear bumper but the entire rear door/glass/defroster/wiper/tire/rim etc had to be replaced.....over 4 grand. if that tire hadn't been hung on the rear door, i would've had a small blemish in my rear bumper that i could've banged out myself. i guess what i'm trying to say is that while insurance covers these things, and it's usually the other guy's fault in rear end collisions, designing a damage-prone (even from minor impacts)tailgate has a negative effect on insurance premiums overall, and causes insurance premiums for these vehicles to be higher than if they had a bumper/tailgate design like the mdx, for example. if 95% of all suv's (including honda's mdx) can look macho enough without a rear-mounted spare and with a proper up-swinging hatch, then i really can't understand honda's reasoning in staying with their backward design.
Comments
Picture- If you notice in the back where the lights are, there are indents further down to suggest that the lights could be further elongated (like in the spy drawing) downwards.
The rear spare tire looks completely different in this picture's view. It looks integrated into the rear swing out gate as opposed to just being tacked on to it. But the picture from the Japanese teaser photo clearly shows a space between the tires and the rear door...
The more you look at it, the more the front reminds you of a RAV4, doesn't it? Thick C & D pillars- apparently it doesn't matter since the Escape is selling so well. I think that's why Honda hasn't taken into consideration the potential blind spot(s). Looking at the sales number for the Escape, Honda assumes customers would trade in superior road views for aesthetic values.
Not sure if 6-speed manual would be better over a 5-speed manual though (atleast as long as I don't see the relatively short fifth on the 2002 CRV). But a sixth could allow CRV to improve gas mileage though (by 2-3 mpg).
meets the bumper. Just an observation.
hondaf1
We have a 2001 crv ex and are expecting a baby soon. Does anyone know of a baby seat you would recommend for the center of the backseat? We have our eye on convertible seats(newborn,infant,toddler). Safety,of course, is most important to us but we also want something that fits well in a crv. We appreciate any suggestions you may have. Also, how does the real time 4wd do in the snow? We go to the mountains a lot, but the crv hasn't seen snow yet. We were hoping chains would never again be necessary. Thanks.
It's just like in those recent crash tests where the Suzuki XL-7's rear spare went flying through the rear glass when it reversed into a pole. With a piece of metal behind the spare, it might not break the glass.
Although I don't think that means that the new CR-V will be any safer in bumper crashes, considering that it barely has a bumper.
Perhaps Honda thinks the CR-V is a safer vehicle and therefore only needs a small first aid kit.
ejp
Thanks!
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
'02 rear drawing
'02 rear photo
First-Aid Kit
Tucked inside the rear bulge, the available first-aid kit has bandages and blankets, tweezers and scissors, antiseptics, adhesives, even a tick-removal kit.
(reposted after removing the image tags)
Okay, I give. The lines of the tailights in the photo match the ones from that drawing. In fact, there are a number of details from the drawing that match the photos.
So maybe the lower portion is masked with duct tape in the photos.
I think its real purpose is to act as something to push off against (using your thumb)when trying to open the door handle on the tailgate, since it now pops out, as opposed to being hidden under jagged ridges like in current CR-V.
Shelley- interesting point. If there's a black CR-V parked right next to the one in the picture, how come the only pictures we've seen so far are the ones of the green CR-V?
I too believe that Honda wants us to see these pictures, and most likely they're trying to throw us off track. All the things that we're complaining about (small tires, what is going on with the taillights, engine specs & performance, etc.) probably has already been dealt with, and Honda is just waiting to go off with a bang when the CR-V finally hits the market. Totally surprising us, as well as others who had no idea a redesign was due.
The spy drawings, show a tiny pic at the top of the page. You can see a white CR-V undergoing snow testing. Presumably the drawing is based on these spy photographs. The white CR-V has body colored bumpers, b/c door handles, and no spare on the back. (also note the pics of the bumpers in the top corner... aftermarket?)
On the drawings, you can also see a character line that stretches from the nose to the rear and passes through the door handles. The line is better defined on the drawing. Now look back at the photo and you'll see the same line. From the rear angle, it gives it a very chiseled look.
There are also short, vertical striations under the rear bumper on the drawing. You'll see them in the photo once you know they're there.
I've also noted that the hood is higher on the new model. As Bing noted, there are reflectors in the rear bumper, for better visibility at night. There are also mud flaps on the back, but, once again, not on the front.
Here's an interesting design detail in the rear door. The current CR-V's door spans the entire width of the vehicle. This makes it extend pretty far back when opened. The door on the new model starts and stops between the tail lights. It'll be about 3-4 inches shorter.
Also, the drawing has front mud guards. Wonder if that was just a miss.
-juice
honda, if you're going to "borrow" why not go all the way and give us a proper, upward-swinging tailgate & no external spare.
I agree. They should at least reverse it and make the glass pop up like the Liberty's, a one-step operation. Oh, and hide those ugly hinges, which would look out of place in a modern Hyundai.
I can't tell from the photos if the hinges will still be there. They're on the far side.
-juice
First, since the tailgate opens to the driver side, it's much more convenient for me. I walk to the back and open the tailgate. Simple. Yes, sometimes, rarely, I have to parallel park at a curb and it's somewhat of a hindrance. But far more frequently I open the door in a parking lot, and then opening on the driver's side is better.
Second, I prefer the extra storage under the rear deck. Remember that the RT4WD requires a full sized spare because of the way it works, so it's not possible to use on of those "donuts".
Third, the tire doesn't block that much of the view, and the large side mirrors help. And with the new design it appears that the tire may be mounted lower, blocking even less of the view out the back window.
Fourth, damage? What damage? I don't back into things. And if someone rear ends my vehicle yes, there is a possibility of greater damage. That's what insurance is for. Either their insurance pays for their stupidity, or mine does (that's what the un-/under-insured motorist coverage is for) and then sues them to recoup the costs.
And yes, my opinion may be different than yours.
I heard about a JDM CR-V that acutally doesn't have a rear mounted spare. Is that right?
Ken
Thanks for clarifying my statement. The circumference of the spare has to be the same as the rest of the tires. A thinner "donut" tire with the same circumference would work fine, although you'd still lose the under deck storage.
Also, the way the handle is mounted sure makes it look like it opens from that side.
Kens - Yep. The JDM model called the Fullmark has the spare located under the table.
....now, with all the aftermarket mods, body kits etc out there, do you think anybody would do a swing up tailgate modification for the cr-v?! i'd be first in line....
michael
Someone posted that maybe the CR-V would get the VTM4 from the MDX, but this isn't likely, IHMO. However, it might be possible that we'll see a lock feature for low speeds. Then again, Honda may have made it more fuel efficient, smaller and lighter, or perhaps offered in different colors! What do you think?
Bob
Possible? Yes, but I don't think it's likely.
JM2C
As for the hinges, I don't mind either. They've never rusted and as long as it keeps opening and closing fine, I cannot complain.
I do object to the new rear bumper - or the lack of one. From the pictures, there doesn't appear to be much there for crash protection besides the tire. Call me old fashioned, but I sort of like having some buffer zone before a vehicle or wall comes into the passenger compartment...
Honda's really got a lot of expectations to meet, but personally, I haven't seen anything that makes me want to upgrade from my '99 model... hmmm.
This blocks the roof rack, though, if you have one.
-juice
What I like:
extremely reliable (zero problems so far)
good fuel economy
Dislikes:
location of window controls (most annoying feature on the vehicle and that is being kind).
Window controls don’t light up, so good luck finding them at night as you pull up to a tollbooth.
Road Noise – can’t fully enjoy your favorite CDs
Seat comfort get a C plus, when you take long trips.
What they need to do to stay with the competition
Fix the dislikes.
How about a mechanical seat the adjust horizontal and vertical (like the Jetta or Focus).
Enhanced safety features like side air bags
Insurance- who'd want to go through all that? I'd rather just have a car that wouldn't cause so much damage when involved in an accident.
> Window controls don't light up,
> so good luck finding them at night
> as you pull up to a tollbooth.
They're lit in my the '99 EX, but I agree they're in an odd place.
> Seat comfort get a C plus, when you
> take long trips.
> How about a mechanical seat the adjust
The driver's seat in my '99 EX has 2 manual height adjustments. I've not had any problem with the comfort of the seats, even in a couple of 10 hour trips (Indy to Rochester, NY).
It probably doesn't make you feel any better about your car, but Honda did fix that non-lighted-window-switch thing in '99.
>when hit from the rear.
I'll grant you that the spare on the back can result in more damage when you're rear ended then if it was under the rear deck. But if someone rear ends me the car is going in the shop anyway, so what do I care whether it's $500 or $2,500? The fact is my car is going to be in the shop. My deductible is the same and my insurance provides a rental car while it's being repaired.
>I belong to the majority that does not want
>to see the continuation of the rear mounted
>spare.
I must have missed the survey post showing the numbers that prove your view is in the majority. I would guess that some hate the spare on the back and some love it on the back, and the majority fall somewhere in between.
Anyone know a vehicle with 02CRV like roofrack ? I want to find out how that works, how are cross bar mounted ?
Still praying for a moonroof.
Another point would be the damage to the rear and the word "safety". The amount of money it takes to repair the rear end of a car has absolutely nothing to do with the safety of the occupants.
Lastly, we are all in the minority because we know enough to care. Auto manufactures don't sell cars to educated consumers. They sell to car dealers. Car dealers don't want to sell to educated consumers. They want to sell to nice dumb people who will spend lots of money for a cheap car. I'm sorry, but those folks are the majority.
I've come to like the window switches. They don't get wet like door mounted switches and they are easy enough to reach. I am glad that I have the ones that glow at night. Without that, they would be tough to find.
Like the Racoon, I'm able to find a comfortable position in the driver's seat. The passenger's seat is not so good. My wife is fine with the driver's seat, but she doesn't care for the passenger's side.
theracoon- many of the SUVs out there do not have the rear tire mounted on the back. There's the majority survey that you were questioning about.
As for insurance, the amount of money isn't what matters. It's the inconvenience of having to go through all that. You are oversimplifying it when you say that all you do is put it in the shop and get a loaner car.
It's not that simple. The insurance company sends out its people to look at the damage to your car and figure out how much they think the damage is worth. They write out a check made to you so that you can pay for the damage. You bring it to a shop, and the mechanic disagrees with the price figure. You then play phone tag with your insurance company and they send someone out again to re-evaluate the damage costs. Finally they work with the mechanic and settle the amount for damage. In the meantime, your loaner car isn't exactly what you want it to be, but since the insurance company is paying for it, you really don't care. Until after 30 days, that is. Your insurance company says they'll pay for your loaner car only for a certain amount of time and only if the company loaning the car can supply the car to you within the insurance company's allowance (i.e. $30/day). After that period of time, you pay for the rental car. Meanwhile, it's taking forever for the mechanic to fix your car. You call everyday and they tell you the same thing, they'll call you when they're done. It's a big pain in the butt. And if you're at fault for the accident, you might even get dropped by your insurance company.
I'm sorry to say that we're just going to have to disagree on this. I can see from the way you state your opinion that it's a waste of band width to even discuss this with you. You believe what you believe and no one is going to change your mind. All the more power too you.
Although you should look for a different insurance company, as my experience has been different. But maybe things have changed since my last accident. In 1983. I was rear ended at a stop light. Light changed to green, traffic ahead of me didn't move (nor did I), but the guy behind me did. Bumper was toast as was the rear hatch. Called the insurance company, told them where I was taking it, they arranged for a rental car company to pick me up at the repair shop. Insurance company called me when the car was done. Rental car company dropped me off at the repair shop, I paid the deductible and drove off in my fixed car. The only thing I personally had to do was install a new bumper mounted CB antenna that had broken in the accident (and which the insurance paid for). And yes, I'm still with the same insurance company.
michael