The rear mounted spare can have an unsafe side effect you haven't mentioned. In IIHS tests, the new RAV4 and the Santa Fe both had their rear hatch glass shatter, with broken bits of glass flying all over the place, including into the passenger compartment. It was eye-opening to see the video. The RAV4 suffered more than $2700 in damage in both rear bumper tests. Both were completely unsafe to drive home after a measly 5mph impact, which is pitiful.
Keep in mind we're talking about a Hyundai and a Toyota, but my point is the rear mounted spare caused the broken glass when it was pushed into it.
Given the damage data, it looks like the current CR-V fared better than those two, but we'll have to wait to see how the new one does.
I was plowed into recently, by a Saturn with no ABS on a rainy day. It was not fun. I was able to stop short and straight, but she got sideways and plowed right into my rear bumper at an angle.
The Saturn was toast. Poor lady had temporary tags - it was brand new. Her plastic quarter panel actually broke in half, it was amazing. Her hood was accordianed, the bumper was gone, the headlights and side turn signals, history. Major damage, including frame damage. Probably $6 or 8 grand. If it were not new, I'd say it was a total loss.
My Forester had $1200 of damage, mostly a scathed bumper cover and a cracked (but still functioning) taillight. No frame damage at all, and the hatch functioned perfectly after the crash, with a perfect seal to this day (nice because it was raining, so nothing inside even got wet). The bumper did its job perfectly, absorbing almost all of the damage. I was fine and my dog, in a harness, was startled but also fine.
I'd be afraid of a damaged hatch, because that's where squeeks and rattles start to appear, even if you get pros to fix it.
What I'd like to see, even if the spare stays on the tail gate, is a bumper that sticks out more to at least take the initial impact. They are designed to collapse and absorb the impact, while the metal on your spare rim certainly is not.
it's interesting that the santa fe's glass shattered as well, as it doesn't have a rear-mounted spare.......i guess there's no substitute for a poorly designed bumper. some of the gm vehicles (aztek & rendezvous) also got poor ratings, so the absence of a spare is no guarantee of good results....you need a properly designed bumper as well (the new cr-v & rav4 don't appear to have any kind of rear bumper)
Certainly insurance costs are an issue. Some of us see it as "who cares, their paying for it". This may be short sighted. I would rather have a vehicle that in a bumper bash has very little damage as opposed to one where the entire rear hatch perhaps including frame is damaged. What's important is not who's paying for it but damage which might include new rear hatch and frame may leave your wonderful CR-v never the same. Repairs of this nature which include welding new parts in are complicated to get perfect. I'll take a small bumper dent any day. A heavily damaged vehicle that is not "totaled" may not be a vehicle you want to own.
the new cars are frameless, unibody cars, including cr-v. these are designed to crumple (hence crumple zone) in an accident while keeping the passenger compartment (safety cage) intact. the best demonstration was on tv a few years ago, when they crashed a unibody car and could easily open the doors to take out the dummy, while a frame based car (i think it was caddy brougham) when crashed into a wall had some frame damage and the door woulnd't open. the point is that damage is not related to occupant's safety. by allowing the crumple zones to do their work, the initial impact is slowed down by a few critical milliseconds, and instead of having out heads separate from the body like dale earnheart's (tubular frame, rigid, no crumple zones -- at least to my knowledge), we are just scared and slightly dazed, but alive.
Many minivan seats are reconfigurable, but I don't recall a passenger seat that does that.
dudka: along those same lines, I've heard that if you jack up on wheel on a unibody, the doors open just fine, but on a body-on-frame design often you cannot, because there is some flex.
Though it's not safety vs. repair bill, not necessarily. Many vehicles do well at both, like the Forester, and especially the New Beetle.
I agree, having a well designed bumper that can absorb minor damage is very important. And it would be nice if the CR-V bumper extended a little farther and absorbed some of the damage, possibly limiting an impact with a tailgate mounted spare tire.
>with broken bits of glass flying all over the >place, including into the passenger compartment.
Broken bits of safety glass flying all over the place, including the passenger compartment.
The glass in your CR-V is not the same as the glass windows in your house. Quoting from the following site concerning side and back windows in automobiles:
the new cars are frameless, unibody cars, including cr-v. these are designed to crumple (hence crumple zone) in an accident while keeping the passenger compartment (safety cage) intact. the best demonstration was on tv a few years ago, when they crashed a unibody car and could easily open the doors to take out the dummy, while a frame based car (i think it was caddy brougham) when crashed into a wall had some frame damage and the door woulnd't open. the point is that damage is not related to occupant's safety. by allowing the crumple zones to do their work, the initial impact is slowed down by a few critical milliseconds, and instead of having out heads separate from the body like dale earnheart's (tubular frame, rigid, no crumple zones -- at least to my knowledge), we are just scared and slightly dazed, but alive.
Racoon - You beat me to both posts. I gotta spend more time on the net. :-)
I saw a pic of the rear facing passenger seat (top view, looking down). I'll see if I can find it again.
There's a big difference between the results of the IIHS bumper bash and an accident between two cars. The IIHS bumper bash is a test of the bumpers ability to protect the car from poles and flat barriers. The results of these tests are measured in the amount of dollars it takes to repair damages. A great deal of that cost is for cosmetic repair. It's more expensive to repaint a bumper than it is to completely replace an unpainted one. That is why I posted that the test has nothing to do with occupant safety. The Racoon posted the other reasons regarding crumple zones and such.
With that said, I agree that the CR-V would be better served by a more formidible bumper, so long as it doesn't interfere with those crush zones. I'm a bit disappointed in the appearance of the bumper in these spy pics, but I'll wait to see the results before I pass judgement. Maybe there's some magic impact absorbing technology hidden below the vehicle in place of a fish tub! Who knows...
With regard to the whole topic, I'm simply not bothered. I have bigger concerns than the rear bumper. I'm more concerned with things that will effect my life than my wallet. I can always replace a wallet and whatever I have in it. Bumper protection is way down on the list somwhere between intermittent wipers and a comfortable dead pedal.
True, while the insurance company pays for the repair (less your deductible), costly repairs can also increase the rates on a given vehicle. Ultimately, the cost comes back to the owner.
Currey - I understand what you're saying, but we can come up with just about any scenario that will be bane or boon for any design.
A front facing car seat with a side impact = glass everywhere. Especially if your car is low to the ground. Of course, if you're high off the ground, you risk rollover. But if you're high off the ground, most impacts happen below body level...
A high speed rear impact from the corner of a vehicle (small impact point) = a greater chance of penetration through the rear of the vehicle. That is, unless you have a spare tire that spreads the impact forces across a wider surface. Then again it might dislodge the spare and send it into the passenger compartment. Or it might force the impact force downward and away from the passenger compartment... but wait don't answer yet...
Hmmm...obviously I wasn't clear. The discussion about whether the spare tire should be on the rear or not is a moot point, since we are in strong disagreement. I never meant to imply that I thought that your opinions were worthless or that they should or would be disregarded. I was only trying to point out that because of our strongly held and opposing views about the spare tire mounting, further discussion of that point was a waste of time.
Absolutely. But how far are you going to go to protect your child? One of the factors we have to weigh as parents is how safe our children are. Part of that is the safety of the vehicles we drive, and how we drive them. And no matter what we do, no matter how much we protect them, sometimes they are going to be hurt. That's part of life. Unfortunately.
Along with a lot of research done on the web, one of the things I did while looking for a new vehicle was contact my insurance company and talk to them about the vehicles I was considering.
All of the information I gathered was factored in to my decision to buy a CR-V.
Of course the primary source of information was my (now ex) fiance. "It has to be a Honda. It has to be red. And you better think twice before you even look at a mini-van."
agree, all I was saying is that in view of what has been presented, a rear mounted tire seems to make it a little easier to break that rear windshield. Yes, I know that other suvs have had the same thing happen without the rear mount, it just seems that honda would be making a safe car a little safer if they moved the spare. Regardless, when we go shopping for another car (for my wife) the CR-V will be high on the list (although I am kind of a fan of the current design and will wait to see the new ones up close and personal).
Interesting tid bit on safety glass, though right there they say it will not "seriously or fatally injure the driver or passengers". My toddler sits about 2 feet away from that rear glass, and I'm also concerned about even minor injuries.
They also mention laminated glass, which is required on the windshield but is spreading to the other windows. Maybe this would be a good idea on the vulnerable rear windows of the RAV4 and Santa Fe. I've seen ads for laminated glass (all around) in Automotive News.
Thing is, no matter how safely you drive, there is always some &$#@* tailgating you that cannot possibly complete an emergency stop without hitting you.
I fully agree with the crumple zone argument, it's just that if a measly 5mph impact goes beyond the tail gate and penetrates the interior, imagine what a more violent collision would do.
A nice dead pedal is vital to me. How else can you drive with gusto? There. I had to disagree on something! ;-)
Miamicrv - The Liberty is a whole lot better than the Cherokee, but I still fear Chrysler quality. I haven't driven one, so I can't comment much. I like it. It looks a bit goofy from the front, but otherwise I like the looks. It's makes a great competitor for the Xterra, but it's too different from the CR-V. I don't even consider them to be in the same class. JM2C
Sonnyb - I went about 4K before having mine changed.
These two are in the same class in interior volume and the all-important arena of price, so a comparison is inevitable:
CR-V STRENGTHS: *fuel-efficient engine: 22/25 mpg (vs 16/20 in the V6 that will be expected in most Liberties) *proven reliability: Check out the Consumer Reports listing for this Honda and you'll see a simply wonderful track record all the way back to the original '97 model year.
LIBERTY STRENGTHS: *potent engine: 210 hp/235 ft-fbs torque -- the V6 is great for towing (but when you're dragging around two tons, don't expect to rule the drag strip). *suspension and 4WD drive system built for hard offroading *very nice styling
They're probably both good choices, depending on the priorities of the driver. In a recent Edmunds review, the author hinted that an updated mini-SUV comparison test was coming soon.
Trying to decide between Toyoto Highlander and the '02 CRV....I know, I know, 2 different classes of SUV , so would like to know what info your dealer had when you ordered it (price, standard equip for EX and LX, options, etc) or was it all just "TBD" ?
There was obviously some miscommunication going on. I took it as an insult when you typed that it was a waste of bandwidth to respond to my postings (not understanding that you were referring to the already over-debated spare tire, and not aiming that comment to me as a participant).
Thanks Slugline. I was thinking of a larger pic I saw somewhere, but those illustrate the feature even better. I'd love to see Honda bring over the reversible seat. We have a picnic table, a bed, a fresh fish tub,... These unique features go along way toward making the CR-V such a fun ride. However, the little angel on my left shoulder would rather we got the four channel ABS with VSA as an option.
I hope the '02 doesn't lose the picnic table. It contributes structural reinforcement during rear end collisions. :-)
Drew - I'm not holding my breath. :-) The MDX and Passport replacement are much more likely to get it (if any vehicle does). However, the Acura engineers felt that VTM-4, an LSD, and the wide stance of the MDX made VSA unnecessary. I don't think they'd feel the same way about the CR-V.
VSA would be sweet. It's the single most significant upgrade the US CR-V could get. And because it includes TCS, you would essentially have both axles managed (currently both have open differentials). Keep your fingers crossed.
That reversing seat would be great for lover's lane. Just lose the center console! ;-)
I test drove a Liberty out of curiosity, and liked it. I liked the torquey engine, cool style inside and out, and improved isolation and ride. It does not seem like it's made by the same folks that made the Cherokee. Night and day.
There are some caveats, though. It's as tall as the Empire State Building, so handling felt tippy and inspire no confidence to take corners fast. I took my Miata to the dealership, and it towered over the little roadster so that your feet in the Liberty were at eye level.
The Limited's interior is nice, but the Sport seems like a "strippo". The little things force you into a Limited, and even then ABS costs extra. It'll cost you $27 grand by the time you add the stuff you'd want. It's priced about $2 grand too high. Quality seemed far better than most Jeeps, but you could still see the exposed stitching on the seats, and cheap vinyl all over the interior of the Sport model, including the most of the front seats. And you cannot get full time 4WD with a 5 speed/V6. Why?
So, for the rough-it type of guy that would otherwise buy an XTerra, the Liberty is far nicer, IMO. The XTerra's engine feels wheezy and the ride and handling are both worse. The Nissan may take the edge in quality (time will tell), but the Liberty is inherently so much better that I'd still pick the Jeep.
For someone looking for a reliable, efficient family car should look elsewhere.
-juice
PS Surprise. In July the Liberty took over the Escape's top sales spot. It's #1 in the class now, with Escape #2 and CR-V #3.
Apparently the Liberty came in at a sticker price that was $2000 over what DC had wanted. Given the cuts in price for the GC and Wrangler, I think you'll see the Liberty take a cut in 2003. Right now it is all about moving out the hot little vehicle.
Of course, people are buying the Limited without mooroofs and ABS becasue there have been tremendous delays. Over on the Liberty Board there is even mention that Liberty production has been shut down for some unknown (read: not vacation) reason.
Given that Ford will eventually sell 300,000 Escapes a year and Honda will sell 250,000 CR-V's a year, I think the Liberty will wind up #3 in the segment. Of course with the VUE coming to market, it could well slip to #4. In any event, I think Jeep's goal of selling 250,000 of these a year is a bit too ambitious.
Ok, back on subject now....Has anyone seen prices for the 2002 CR-V? .
I think I read about a stop-build for a recall of some sort. I forget the details, so don't quote me on this.
The most trick features is the rear hatch. Pull the handle and the glass pops up automatically, raising itself smoothly all the way up. It's a smooth, one-touch operation that Honda should blatantly copy. Plus the door swings toward traffic.
You're right - no moonroofs at the dealer, and no ABS yet either. As a matter of fact, they didn't even have any 5 speeds yet, nor did they have 4 cylinders (though the V6 is a must-have in such a heavy truck).
I disagree with your numbers, though. It's close to 200k Escapes and 120k CR-Vs per year. Liberty will be first or 2nd. Saturn will not break into the top 5, IMO.
With all due respect Juice, the numbers you quoted are a bit off, but I also might have misspoke....I shouldhave said I was referring to production numbers not sales.
The 300K Escape number comes directly from Ford and the 175K for the CR-V comes from Honda and was mentioned when their Bristish production coming online.
And the VUE is expectd to be a huge hit. Every analyst and reiewere that has gotten a ride raves about the thing.
Whe it first came out I liked the Liberty, but it simply has too little cargo room. I mean at least have more than the RAV4, not .1 less....The CR-V has a ton more room, well the 2001 did, I haven't a clue about the 2002.
However, I am still torn as to whether I need an SUV or not...So, I will lurk on these boards until I make a decision.
I was just on the Honda website last night, but the only sales figures I found were old (back to 99). I didn't spend much time looking, but I'd be interested in more current numbers if someone has a link.
Juice - I think the Vue has some potential, but Saturn has that reputation for being 'odd'. The brand has a nice loyal following, but it's a small following. It's not a show-stopper, but it's a hurdle for the company. Besides, even is Saturn had the market muscle to pull it off, I don't think they have the production capacity.
I think you meant worldwide production. I meant US sales only. But one peek at that chart says I was spot-on. :-)
The Liberty's cargo area is kind of tall and not very deep. Owners will have to stack things upright, I guess. And the roof rack is way too high for practical purposes.
We'll see about the Vue. Depends a lot on how they price it, I guess. The CVT only goes on the 138hp 4 bangers; the 181hp V6 is auto only, and that doesn't match Escape or Liberty. Though it will be a 5 speed auto, a first in this segment. I think it gets the side curtain bags from the L series, too.
If they can keep a loaded V6 at about $23k, it'll sell well. Remember, you pay MSRP for Saturns. They priced the Aztec too high so hopefully they learned a lesson.
Thanks! Just as I thought. The Cherokee Classic is still in the game. We always forget about it, because (to us) it seems so primitive, but it has always been a big seller. We often think of the CR-V as the sales champ for the mini-ute class, but I don't think Honda ever overtook the Cherokee for more than a month here or there.
Saturn,I believe, is building a huge addition onto their Sprinhill plant to handle increased production. In addition they just showed off a potential convertible concept that they may debut during the show season next winter. The CVT in the VUE is interesting becaue it will apparently generate gas mileage in the area of 30 mpg in the city and 35 on the highway.
With the CR-V, I think you are going to see a lot more supply because of the increased production. Whereas all vehicles now are produced in Japan, most US bound ones will be produced in England. Granted, they will never surpass the Escape or Liberty for production numbers, I'd say the sales numbers will be right up there. Further, the CR-V has sold 63K through July, given its rate of 9k a month, its sales ought to be just shy of 120K for the year. Not too much from 150 or so, given more supply.
This type of growth curve isn't astronomical as the best Chrokee year was about 150K sold, and Jeep is now expecting to produce and sell over 200K of the Liberty.
Just wondering if anyone is concerned about the 2002's being built in England. No offense to the English, I'm not really enthusiastic about US assembled cars either...
The Honda Rep at the Mid Atlantic Meet said that production for US CR-Vs will be split. Sayama distributes to the west coast and Swindon will ship to the east.
Tatu1 - Dunno. Can't say, yet. Cars manufactured in the Swindon plant will meet the same quality control standards used in the Japanese plants. How well that can be enforced is up to Honda UK. The plant has been operational for a while and I haven't read any complaints about the Civics that are produced there. We probably won't see a significant statistical difference until 2004. Regardless of where it is built, I expect there to be some first year bugs that need to be worked out.
Yikes, I hope that Varmit's comment about Sayama supplying the West coast holds true.
BTW, good to see a lot of the same folks are still active here - I feel like I never left! My CR-V lease is running out in a few months so you old-timers may see me around more often. Lots of excitement in the mini-ute world these days!
Here's what I did. Find a site on the web, like http://www.handa-accessories.com/crv.html, that sells CR-V accessories. They usually have PDF files of installation instructions, including things like the OEM in dash 6 CD changer. The instructions will tell you how to disassemble the dash to get the stereo head unit out.
Comments
Keep in mind we're talking about a Hyundai and a Toyota, but my point is the rear mounted spare caused the broken glass when it was pushed into it.
Given the damage data, it looks like the current CR-V fared better than those two, but we'll have to wait to see how the new one does.
I was plowed into recently, by a Saturn with no ABS on a rainy day. It was not fun. I was able to stop short and straight, but she got sideways and plowed right into my rear bumper at an angle.
The Saturn was toast. Poor lady had temporary tags - it was brand new. Her plastic quarter panel actually broke in half, it was amazing. Her hood was accordianed, the bumper was gone, the headlights and side turn signals, history. Major damage, including frame damage. Probably $6 or 8 grand. If it were not new, I'd say it was a total loss.
My Forester had $1200 of damage, mostly a scathed bumper cover and a cracked (but still functioning) taillight. No frame damage at all, and the hatch functioned perfectly after the crash, with a perfect seal to this day (nice because it was raining, so nothing inside even got wet). The bumper did its job perfectly, absorbing almost all of the damage. I was fine and my dog, in a harness, was startled but also fine.
I'd be afraid of a damaged hatch, because that's where squeeks and rattles start to appear, even if you get pros to fix it.
What I'd like to see, even if the spare stays on the tail gate, is a bumper that sticks out more to at least take the initial impact. They are designed to collapse and absorb the impact, while the metal on your spare rim certainly is not.
-juice
the point is that damage is not related to occupant's safety. by allowing the crumple zones to do their work, the initial impact is slowed down by a few critical milliseconds, and instead of having out heads separate from the body like dale earnheart's (tubular frame, rigid, no crumple zones -- at least to my knowledge), we are just scared and slightly dazed, but alive.
Many minivan seats are reconfigurable, but I don't recall a passenger seat that does that.
dudka: along those same lines, I've heard that if you jack up on wheel on a unibody, the doors open just fine, but on a body-on-frame design often you cannot, because there is some flex.
Though it's not safety vs. repair bill, not necessarily. Many vehicles do well at both, like the Forester, and especially the New Beetle.
-juice
-juice
>place, including into the passenger compartment.
Broken bits of safety glass flying all over the place, including the passenger compartment.
The glass in your CR-V is not the same as the glass windows in your house. Quoting from the following site concerning side and back windows in automobiles:
http://www.wefixglass.com/glass.htm
Upon sudden impact, tempered safety glass simply disintegrates into dull-edged pebbles.
With tempered safety glass there are no large, jagged pieces of glass to seriously or fatally injure the driver or passengers.
the point is that damage is not related to occupant's safety. by allowing the crumple zones to do their work, the initial impact is slowed down by a few critical milliseconds, and instead of having out heads separate from the body like dale earnheart's (tubular frame, rigid, no crumple zones -- at least to my knowledge), we are just scared and slightly dazed, but alive.
I saw a pic of the rear facing passenger seat (top view, looking down). I'll see if I can find it again.
There's a big difference between the results of the IIHS bumper bash and an accident between two cars. The IIHS bumper bash is a test of the bumpers ability to protect the car from poles and flat barriers. The results of these tests are measured in the amount of dollars it takes to repair damages. A great deal of that cost is for cosmetic repair. It's more expensive to repaint a bumper than it is to completely replace an unpainted one. That is why I posted that the test has nothing to do with occupant safety. The Racoon posted the other reasons regarding crumple zones and such.
With that said, I agree that the CR-V would be better served by a more formidible bumper, so long as it doesn't interfere with those crush zones. I'm a bit disappointed in the appearance of the bumper in these spy pics, but I'll wait to see the results before I pass judgement. Maybe there's some magic impact absorbing technology hidden below the vehicle in place of a fish tub! Who knows...
With regard to the whole topic, I'm simply not bothered. I have bigger concerns than the rear bumper. I'm more concerned with things that will effect my life than my wallet. I can always replace a wallet and whatever I have in it. Bumper protection is way down on the list somwhere between intermittent wipers and a comfortable dead pedal.
Just something else to think about.
Ken
A front facing car seat with a side impact = glass everywhere. Especially if your car is low to the ground. Of course, if you're high off the ground, you risk rollover. But if you're high off the ground, most impacts happen below body level...
A high speed rear impact from the corner of a vehicle (small impact point) = a greater chance of penetration through the rear of the vehicle. That is, unless you have a spare tire that spreads the impact forces across a wider surface. Then again it might dislodge the spare and send it into the passenger compartment. Or it might force the impact force downward and away from the passenger compartment... but wait don't answer yet...
Regards,
Rac...
Absolutely. But how far are you going to go to protect your child? One of the factors we have to weigh as parents is how safe our children are. Part of that is the safety of the vehicles we drive, and how we drive them. And no matter what we do, no matter how much we protect them, sometimes they are going to be hurt. That's part of life. Unfortunately.
Along with a lot of research done on the web, one of the things I did while looking for a new vehicle was contact my insurance company and talk to them about the vehicles I was considering.
All of the information I gathered was factored in to my decision to buy a CR-V.
Of course the primary source of information was my (now ex) fiance. "It has to be a Honda. It has to be red. And you better think twice before you even look at a mini-van."
They also mention laminated glass, which is required on the windshield but is spreading to the other windows. Maybe this would be a good idea on the vulnerable rear windows of the RAV4 and Santa Fe. I've seen ads for laminated glass (all around) in Automotive News.
Thing is, no matter how safely you drive, there is always some &$#@* tailgating you that cannot possibly complete an emergency stop without hitting you.
I fully agree with the crumple zone argument, it's just that if a measly 5mph impact goes beyond the tail gate and penetrates the interior, imagine what a more violent collision would do.
A nice dead pedal is vital to me. How else can you drive with gusto? There. I had to disagree on something! ;-)
-juice
Sonnyb - I went about 4K before having mine changed.
CR-V STRENGTHS:
*fuel-efficient engine: 22/25 mpg (vs 16/20 in the V6 that will be expected in most Liberties)
*proven reliability: Check out the Consumer Reports listing for this Honda and you'll see a simply wonderful track record all the way back to the original '97 model year.
LIBERTY STRENGTHS:
*potent engine: 210 hp/235 ft-fbs torque -- the V6 is great for towing (but when you're dragging around two tons, don't expect to rule the drag strip).
*suspension and 4WD drive system built for hard offroading
*very nice styling
They're probably both good choices, depending on the priorities of the driver. In a recent Edmunds review, the author hinted that an updated mini-SUV comparison test was coming soon.
Thanks!
http://www.ptcruiserusa.com/hondasuv/crvix/library/japan_crvsport_mag.htm
I would love to see that in action!
Sorry if I overreacted.
I hope the '02 doesn't lose the picnic table. It contributes structural reinforcement during rear end collisions. :-)
Heh heh, not before the MDX you won't! ;-)
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
That reversing seat would be great for lover's lane. Just lose the center console! ;-)
I test drove a Liberty out of curiosity, and liked it. I liked the torquey engine, cool style inside and out, and improved isolation and ride. It does not seem like it's made by the same folks that made the Cherokee. Night and day.
There are some caveats, though. It's as tall as the Empire State Building, so handling felt tippy and inspire no confidence to take corners fast. I took my Miata to the dealership, and it towered over the little roadster so that your feet in the Liberty were at eye level.
The Limited's interior is nice, but the Sport seems like a "strippo". The little things force you into a Limited, and even then ABS costs extra. It'll cost you $27 grand by the time you add the stuff you'd want. It's priced about $2 grand too high. Quality seemed far better than most Jeeps, but you could still see the exposed stitching on the seats, and cheap vinyl all over the interior of the Sport model, including the most of the front seats. And you cannot get full time 4WD with a 5 speed/V6. Why?
So, for the rough-it type of guy that would otherwise buy an XTerra, the Liberty is far nicer, IMO. The XTerra's engine feels wheezy and the ride and handling are both worse. The Nissan may take the edge in quality (time will tell), but the Liberty is inherently so much better that I'd still pick the Jeep.
For someone looking for a reliable, efficient family car should look elsewhere.
-juice
PS Surprise. In July the Liberty took over the Escape's top sales spot. It's #1 in the class now, with Escape #2 and CR-V #3.
Of course, people are buying the Limited without mooroofs and ABS becasue there have been tremendous delays. Over on the Liberty Board there is even mention that Liberty production has been shut down for some unknown (read: not vacation) reason.
Given that Ford will eventually sell 300,000 Escapes a year and Honda will sell 250,000 CR-V's a year, I think the Liberty will wind up #3 in the segment. Of course with the VUE coming to market, it could well slip to #4. In any event, I think Jeep's goal of selling 250,000 of these a year is a bit too ambitious.
Ok, back on subject now....Has anyone seen prices for the 2002 CR-V? .
The most trick features is the rear hatch. Pull the handle and the glass pops up automatically, raising itself smoothly all the way up. It's a smooth, one-touch operation that Honda should blatantly copy. Plus the door swings toward traffic.
You're right - no moonroofs at the dealer, and no ABS yet either. As a matter of fact, they didn't even have any 5 speeds yet, nor did they have 4 cylinders (though the V6 is a must-have in such a heavy truck).
I disagree with your numbers, though. It's close to 200k Escapes and 120k CR-Vs per year. Liberty will be first or 2nd. Saturn will not break into the top 5, IMO.
-juice
The 300K Escape number comes directly from Ford and the 175K for the CR-V comes from Honda and was mentioned when their Bristish production coming online.
And the VUE is expectd to be a huge hit. Every analyst and reiewere that has gotten a ride raves about the thing.
Whe it first came out I liked the Liberty, but it simply has too little cargo room. I mean at least have more than the RAV4, not .1 less....The CR-V has a ton more room, well the 2001 did, I haven't a clue about the 2002.
However, I am still torn as to whether I need an SUV or not...So, I will lurk on these boards until I make a decision.
Juice - I think the Vue has some potential, but Saturn has that reputation for being 'odd'. The brand has a nice loyal following, but it's a small following. It's not a show-stopper, but it's a hurdle for the company. Besides, even is Saturn had the market muscle to pull it off, I don't think they have the production capacity.
The Liberty's cargo area is kind of tall and not very deep. Owners will have to stack things upright, I guess. And the roof rack is way too high for practical purposes.
We'll see about the Vue. Depends a lot on how they price it, I guess. The CVT only goes on the 138hp 4 bangers; the 181hp V6 is auto only, and that doesn't match Escape or Liberty. Though it will be a 5 speed auto, a first in this segment. I think it gets the side curtain bags from the L series, too.
If they can keep a loaded V6 at about $23k, it'll sell well. Remember, you pay MSRP for Saturns. They priced the Aztec too high so hopefully they learned a lesson.
-juice
With the CR-V, I think you are going to see a lot more supply because of the increased production. Whereas all vehicles now are produced in Japan, most US bound ones will be produced in England. Granted, they will never surpass the Escape or Liberty for production numbers, I'd say the sales numbers will be right up there. Further, the CR-V has sold 63K through July, given its rate of 9k a month, its sales ought to be just shy of 120K for the year. Not too much from 150 or so, given more supply.
This type of growth curve isn't astronomical as the best Chrokee year was about 150K sold, and Jeep is now expecting to produce and sell over 200K of the Liberty.
Tatu1 - Dunno. Can't say, yet. Cars manufactured in the Swindon plant will meet the same quality control standards used in the Japanese plants. How well that can be enforced is up to Honda UK. The plant has been operational for a while and I haven't read any complaints about the Civics that are produced there. We probably won't see a significant statistical difference until 2004. Regardless of where it is built, I expect there to be some first year bugs that need to be worked out.
BTW, good to see a lot of the same folks are still active here - I feel like I never left!
My CR-V lease is running out in a few months so you old-timers may see me around more often. Lots of excitement in the mini-ute world these days!
JM2C