hi. i'm the webmaster for hondanews.com and wanted to let all you CR-V fanatics know that a whole mess of official Honda CR-V photos have just been released today, September 1, 2001.
I'm sure the new CRV will appeal to the masses, but I was hoping for a Type R, 16" wheels, more horses and styling more like a Rav 4. This has family station wagon written all over it. Oh well, I guess I'll give the Liberty a closer look or just wait.....
Wow! Tons of photos! Looks like the media floodgates have been opened.
I think Honda did a great job in making the interior of the CR-V even better. I really like how the rear seats can slide back for extra leg room. The photos really show that ability.
One thing that did catch my attention was the HP/Torque graph:
The torque curve falls pretty sharply after the 3600RPM peak.
Also, the curb weights of the CR-V are available now. Good news, it looks like the CR-V didn't gain too much weight: '01: 3219/3245 '02: 3287/3347. One thing to note is that the engine still pulls more than 20lbs per HP, though.
I still hope the "surprise" is in the engine. It would be very interesting to see the engine put out something like 180hp when it is finally unveiled, instead of the 160 that seems to be what everyone is confirming. I wouldn't mind if torque remained at 160.
It's got a nice, clean look, especially in the side view. (Thanks, webmaster.) And 160 hp, with that torque and that weight, may work out just fine. Honda hits a lot of home runs, and this could be another. Look how long the first gen CR-V stayed in contention. ejp
The one picture of the silver CR-V in frontal view- it looks very "surprised." I think it would look better with a 2-bulb treatment for each headlight, but that would be BMW territory.
Overall it's a decent looking vehicle. I can't say that it's anything stellar, since it seems that Honda copied the Escape and Tribute and added on a rear spare to try to differentiate it from its two obvious mentors.
And like the redesigned Civics, the new CR-V seems to have extremely tight panel gaps.
Ken - You always get right to the thick of it, don't you? Power and weight. :-)
When I first saw that power curve, I thought it had to be a mistake. When I recognized that the HP and torque numbers are represented in different spacings, it began to make more sense. The engine actually pumps out 90% of peak torque from about 2,200 - 5,600 rpms.
I am very happy to see that weight did not grow substantially. I was expecting a 200 lbs increase. The 5 speed only grew 68 lbs, though the auto earned 100+. Ken is right. The HP to weight ratio did not increase very much, but it's better than I'd expected.
I disappointed in the mpg increase. Only 1 mile per gallon at highway speeds. I'm also not happy with the 500 lbs increase in towing capacity. When we saw the spy pics of a CR-V towing the 1,500 lbs Haulmark trailer, I figured it had to be at least 2,000 lbs. Looks like that trailer was empty.
When it rains it pours, so many pictures to sort through all of a sudden. None of the pictures show the rear seats removed, or back flattened to make bed. Keep my fingers crossed.
Am also disappointed in the tow rating, guess I'll have to settle on a smaller boat. Maybe a canoe.
I still like the Tribute very much, too bad Ford messed it up. You can not drive it worryfree like my current Toyota, 10 years , not a single break down. Rav4 is no competition, design is 5 years behind Honda. XL7 is cramped and obsolete. Liberty too heavy, too tall. Highlander looks like a loaf of bread. Forrester is a station wagon. Santa Fe, I'm not ready for Koreans, maybe their women..
That's what I plan to do when I buy 02 CR-V. Put the spare tire inside, but you have to find the way to bolt it to the floor or something; otherwise, it will pump up and down on the rough roads. What about the rack? Can you just unscrew it to remove or just leave it there? It looks awful with the empty rack.
Glad to finally see some solid CR-V being released. Unfortunately it is not the vehicle for me. The towing capacity of 1500 lbs. takes it off my list, as with the RAV4. I was surprised by some of the features, particularly the automatic shifter and parking break--- quirky. I was also disappointed by the MPGs. I somehow thought Honda was going to be a standout in the fuel efficiency catagory, like with the Civic. The interior does remind me of a minivan, but it looks practical and funtional. My decision is now down to the Hyundai Santa Fe and the Saturn Vue.
50% more torsional rigidity 30% better bending rigidity stainless stell exhaust 110,000 mile first tune up durable timing chain 4 sensor, 3 channel antilock brake moonroof standard on EX 64.5 db at 60 mph side airbag standard on EX 4wd EX weight 3347 lb. turning diameter 34.1 ft toe control Mcpherson equals double wishbone automatic trans is all new design engine immobilizer system remote keyless on EX controls gate window. 2.4L engine has balancer shaft height lower than 01, roofrail excepted.
Re your styling comparison of 2002 CRV to RAV4. You're right about one being 5 years behind the other. Only uou got it mixed up. I've been waiting months, as have many others for photos of new CRV. The interior and exterior styling doesn't compare to the RAV4. Engineering and ride may be better. But purely from an aesthetic viewpoint, IMHO, there's no comparison. Overall, I'm disappointed with the new look. Honda had a chance to make a bold styling staement to go along with it's superior engineering. While no doubt the new CRV will sell, as all Hondas do, I will not be a customer this time around.
Well, I too have been waiting for an update to the CR-V before making a decision... My initial impressions are:
1. Styling: Just not my "cup of tea" to be honest... maybe it will "grow" on me but that grey lower cladding and bumper deal scream "Stripped model" even though it's on the upscale EX.
2. Interior: The e-brake is interesting as is the shifter... looks like they "might" have improved the column shifter but I simply prefer the RX-300/Highlander/Santa-Fe/VUE on the dash-mounted shifter setup. I mean, the 5-speed has it on the console, why not the automatic?
3. 160hp is better than 140, but you don't get the HP and Torque until close to 4k rpms.... from a stoplight, (1500 rmp) or at cruising speed (2500ish) you've got about 50hp on-tap. While this is common for Japanese 4-cyl motors, you'd think they would have given you more torque available from the get-go to make up for lack of a V6. Nissan's new 2.4L makes close to 180 hp with quite a bit of torque available off-line.
4. The 4-wheel double wishbone is gone... NO mac-setup is "just like" the double wishbone, sorry. Just drive beind a new 2001 Civic and you'll see that the rear wheels are always perfectly aligned with the road as the car moves up/down... then look at the fronts... they toe in/out over the same movement.
Of course, there are many improvements that shouldn't be overlooked either like the availability of a sunroof now and other interior features like the folding seats. However, the tailgate still is not designed for the North American market and still swings towards the curb forcing you to go into the street to load up the rear... How come the new Liberty is built in North american and foreign versions with it swinging the proper way? Also, there is NO rear bumper now... the spare tire is aparently designed to "take the brunt" in accidents and that's a mistake... even light rear taps are going to cause excessive damage to the tailgate/rear window.
All in all, I guess I expected something "more" but I need to remind myself that this is Honda here. Back in the 80's/early 90's the civic and accord replacements were always something really "different" and you couldn't wait to see how they would look. After seeing where the 2001 civic line "went" I guess I shouldn't be shocked that they didn't take any risks with the CRV replacement. Apparently, the upcoming mdx-based larger SUV warrants the CRV be kept "low-end". I am worried though because the new Camry, RAV and upcoming Corolla are VAST improvements over the previous models and the styling is great (and I never cared for toyota styling compared to Honda). The 2001 civic, while attractive, is going to be very "long in the tooth" in a couple years and I don't hold out much hope for the 2003 accord looking much different than the current model after seeing the civic/cr-v.
Of course, one of the great things about the 2002 CRV is that there is really nothing so VASTLY different to warrant waiting for it, honestly. I mean, with the current model (still very attractive I think) going for invoice in most places and now offering low financing, it sounds like the deal of the century. I mean, it has 20hp less than the new one (no big deal) but you get the 4-wheel double wishbone and all of the bugs are worked out of it by now I'm sure (not many to begin with). With 2002 models going at a premium I'm sure (those creeps are going to sell them at Retail+ for a good year or more I'm sure...) a 2001 EX or SE sounds like the way to go. Maybe if it had 180hp, 4wheel discs, improved styling, an updated tailgate design and other REAL improvements (not cost-cutting like the mac-strut setup) I could say, "I'm waiting for the new one".
yeah, agree the front end looks somewhat "surprised", timid even....no matter how much black crap they tack on. no one's commented on tires/wheels yet......looks a little weak-kneed to me.....most of the competition has 16 inchers....with the larger body on the new cr-v, 15's don't cut it anymore
Jamtero - As posted above; 90% of peak torque is available from 2,200 - 5,600 rpms. You do not have to wait for 4,000 rpms to get any power.
It does have 4 wheel disk brakes (though only the front set are vented).
I agree that generally a 2X bones set up is better (if tuned properly), but this is an SUVish car, not a performance vehicle. The new suspension allows for better crush zones and that's way more important.
Chas - I think Scname was referring to the engineering of the RAV4 and new CR-V, not the styling. I agree that the Toyota has much more futuristic styling. However it's functionality is no better than the current CR-V. This 2nd gen model far surpasses it.
Scname - Here's a few pics with the seat as bed-like as possible.
This last one does a good job of showing how the front seats fold, but the rear ones are in an upright position. You can imagine what it looks like with them leaning back.
This page shows the current model and how the seat base lifts up to make the rear more flat.
Scname - The missing information is probably the stuff that dealers will install. There's no listings for sport trim, front mud guards, a roof rack, etc. Fog lights might be one of those items... or not.
Varmit-- Thanks for clarifying point made by scname. In what ways other than horsepower and possibly torque do you feel that new CRV's functionality surpasses the RAV4. I'm getting close to making a decision on both and right now I am leaning towards the RAV4 because of its styling. I'm looking for a vehicle that gives me better heigt and visibilty than a passenfer car and 4wd. Offroad use, camping, etc. is not an issue for me. Comments from others are welcome as well.
Chas - Good question. Here are the functional highlights as I see them. Personally, I do use mine for camping and off-road, so I'll leave that out. I'll try to tailor this to things you might need and also include my own experiences.
RAV4 - A much sportier vehicle. Good handling and good fuel economy as well. Functionally speaking, the rear seats are still too small. I wouldn't want to spend much time back there. The cargo area is also small. You have to remove the rear seats in order to get maximum capacity. You'll need a place to stow them and I hope you won't need them on long trips. Furthermore, max capacty is still within one ft. of the 1st gen CR-V. Little ground clearance will prevent you from getting over that berm that the snow plows left at the end of your driveway. The new RAV4 has slighty more power than the 1st gen CR-V, but acceleration is still no better. Despite the new CR-V's power advantage, towing is the same for these vehicles.
CR-V - More of a mom-mobile. Definately not sexy, but not freakish either. The 2nd gen CR-V is even more like a minivan than the first. It has a huge interior volume for both passengers and cargo. Sliding rear seats will let you accomodate both when necessary. Up to 72 cu.ft. are available without removing anything. That's only 3 less than the JGC and RX300. Need to smack that kid in the back? The CR-V has the pass-through. Not many folks use this, but as a dog owner, it has become a very handy feature for me. Other features include the picnic table (I use it all the time) and the wet/dry storage under the cargo area. Great for hiding dog food where the hounds can't get at it. Also great for wet gear (scuba, hiking clothes, swim suits, etc...). I've used the bed feature to haul long items inside the car (9-10 ft. lumber or pipe). The 2nd gen CR-V sems to be limited in this capacity, but the potential is still there. The aforementioned ground clearance is not just for off-roading and it's gotten me out of tight parking spaces, through unplowed parking lots, over the hill, and through the woods.
The RAV4 still has a lot going for it, but, from a strictly utilitarian veiwpoint, it's falling behind. Which is better always depends on how you are going to use it.
I see the towing has improved to 1500 pounds. I was hoping for 2000 pounds.
I wonder if Honda has a "trailer brake clause," with this rating, as does Subaru. Subaru claims 2000 pounds towing—if the trailer has brakes. If the trailer doesn't have brakes, then the tow rating is only 1000 pounds. That's one area I'm hoping the new Forester will address.
I'm surprised that the wheels and tires remain the same size as before. I was hoping for larger 16" wheels.
Do you think the new CRV has a trailer brake restriction, like that of Subaru?
I keep wondering about trailering because I have a 5'x8' utility trailer that weighs 670 pounds empty. It's rated for 2900 pounds (gvw), so max trailering is important to me. Currently I tow it with our Explorer, which handles the trailer just fine.
The Honda web site gives EPA mileage estimates for the 2002 CR-V as 22/25. Is this likely to be accurate or are these estimates typically conservative relative to real world mileage? What were estimates for previous years models and what were people actually getting? Finally, is it likely that there will be no difference in fuel efficiency between a manual and auto. as Honda states? Thanks
"the new CR-V boast more torque at 1,500 rpm than the outgoing model had at its peak. On paper, the improvement is dramatic, with the new model boasting a much more than adequate 162 pounds-feet of torque, while the outgoing model only had an anemic 133. And those numbers translate into real-world performance. The 2002's greater pulling power is immediately noticeable and probably the most significant improvement over the outgoing model.
The benefits are manifold. For one thing, acceleration is more responsive. Honda claims the new model is almost three seconds faster to 100 kilometres an hour. Passing trucks is much easier, and punch off the line is noticeably improved.
Because the power increase is predominately at low rpm, driveability is also much improved. The new CR-V doesn't have to rev half as hard as the old to get moving, resulting in much less commotion under the hood.
In fact, below 5,000 rpm, the new four is wonderfully smooth and quiet. Its noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) rivals that of the new 2.4-litre four that powers the new Camry and is superior to (the admittedly more powerful) Nissan Altima 2.5-litre four. The Escape's V6 will not have that large an advantage in the NVH department. Nonetheless, the Ford's 3.0-litre can boast 200 horsepower with even greater torque. It may not be needed, but it certainly is a marketing advantage.
Another marked improvement is the new CR-V's roadholding. Based on the current Civic platform, the CR-V rides on all-independent suspension -- MacPherson struts in front and double wishbones in the rear -- that is much firmer than the original. Body roll is much reduced, and the new CR-V feels more planted on the highway. It is also worth noting the Honda's steering is more responsive than that in most SUVs, feeling almost car-like in its handling abilities. The downside is a ride that can get a little bouncy over broken pavement."
The mpg estimates are always an "estimate", regardless of whether they were done by the manufacturer or the EPA. The 2nd gen mpg estimates are 22-26 for an auto and 22-25 for a manual. Weird. The 1st gen CR-V got 22-25 for either transmission.
Bob - The current 1,000 lbs restriction is without brakes. They do not publish a braked number for legal reasons. Honda folks have stated that with the 5 speed, it'll handle 1,500 lbs, but they won't publish it. The new CR-V may be similar in that Honda will publish a lower number knowing that people will try to push it.
The brakes on the CR-V itself have been upgraded, but we'll have to see if they make a big difference. If they do, then I suspect that the 1,500 lbs limitation is based on legalities rather than capabilities.
I have narrowed my choice for a new auto down to a 02 crv lx or a 02 hyundai sonata gls. The crv does not have some features as the sonata but I keep thinking "you only get what you pay for" I can expect some good opinions from you all because everyone on this board seems to be courteous and knowledgable. Thanks in advance.
We need an alternative site that allows us download the big pictures. I don't want to pretend to be a journalist if I don't have to.
The back seat doesn't look like removable. Can't believe Honda screwed up. Backseat doesn't lie flat either. I need a sleeping arrangement on fishing trips. Don't think I can do that sitting up at 60 degree angle. Putting Tribute back on my list. 3500 lb towing is nice.
Can not believe anyone cross shopping CRV with a Sonata. You don't mean Santa Fe, do you ? I take the CRV anyday, you get the reliability, twice the resale value, much better speed and handling than the Santa Fe at least. Don't know about Sonata,
The Hondanews site is a Honda corporate owned digital press site intented for journalists and other members of the media only. You can't pretend anyway because they verify your journalist accreditation or press association before providing you with access. ;-).
Drew Host Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Honda New CRV site now has an 02 Fullmark with painted bumper and fog light. Amber side marker is not in the headlight unit, but separate on the fender. Honda never brings their top line over here, Discrimination...
Scname - I hate to tell you this, but the Fullmark has had VSA for several years. They also have a navigations system, four channel ABS, an optional shower unit, and reversible seat. Oh, and that silly inside mounted spare. ;-) ;-)
Diploid - VSA and TCS are similar. There may be other differences, but TCS will brake one of wheels that gets power if it detects slippage. Typically it's used on FWD cars to assist with accleration and steering over slippery or broken surfaces. VSA uses the same single wheel braking idea, but it affect all four wheels. It will brake non-powered wheels to keep a car moving straight in the event of a skid. Drew has some good press material from MB on it. He's a big fan of the technology.
VSA = Vehicle Stability Assist, for those of you who don't know. TCS is one component of VSA.
Powered or non-powered wheels can be braked prior to a skid to guide the vehicle in the direction that the driver intends it to go. Here's more information on stability control and traction control, if you're interested:
My CR-V was a victim of a mindless, inconsiderate individual that slammed their car door into my unblemished passenger doors recently.
Now, I'm considering have Paintless Dent Repair done since I don't want deal paint mismatch, etc.
I'm wondering if any other owners here have had PDR done on their vehicles and if they're satisfied with the results. And what should I expect in terms of cost for a "half-dollar" sized door ding?
I'd appreciate any recommendations, especially if they're in the San Antonio, Texas area.
Those steel loop at bottom of seat. No other use for them besides as release and carry handle I can think of. Wasn't able to enlarge this photo before.
KMH - I had four dents popped out of the back passenger door by dentbusters. None of the dents were huge. Door dings, all of them, but you cannot tell they were ever there. Took it to Dentbusters, which I think is a national chain. Cost me $105 for all four, if I remember correctly. Guy told me that honda has the softest sheetmetal in the business, which is good and bad. Get more dents, but easy to pop out without leaving a mark behind. Was amazing to watch actually.
Hi KMH.... I live in Miami...where being inconsiderate is a way of life...I had a ding taken out several months ago. I was amazed. Dent Wizard charged $90 I think. It took about 20 minutes and my CRV is absolutely perfect.
I personally think the CRV is one of Honda's worst creations next to the Odyessy. Honda just doesn't make appealing SUVs of any kind. But I do give a lot of credit to all the other Honda car desgins which are VERY beautiful. Looks are subjective, so i don't deny anyone else's view of the car's looks.
PDR is pretty amazing. As long as the dent isn't creased badly or is in a hard to get location, then the results are usually very good. I think it's usually $75-80 for a quarter sized ding.
You would be correct, from what I have been able to tell. The rear seats are not removable from the features and specs lists that I have. They're only fold and tumble seats...still, there is plenty of room it seems. Any thoughts?
Drew Host Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Comments
Check out hondanews.com
have fun!
Anyone know what the roof rack is going to look like?
Love the European-esque radio antenna.
I'm still waiting until the Forester redesign, though.
I love how they can worry about a car that hasn't even been made yet, let alone know how it will perform on the market.
But if there was a type-R variant of this new body, would you still be interested? I know I would.
I think Honda did a great job in making the interior of the CR-V even better. I really like how the rear seats can slide back for extra leg room. The photos really show that ability.
One thing that did catch my attention was the HP/Torque graph:
http://osx.wieck.com/pv/HON/2001/09/01/HON2001090147529_pv.jpg
The torque curve falls pretty sharply after the 3600RPM peak.
Also, the curb weights of the CR-V are available now. Good news, it looks like the CR-V didn't gain too much weight: '01: 3219/3245 '02: 3287/3347. One thing to note is that the engine still pulls more than 20lbs per HP, though.
Ken
At 5000 rpm, torque is only decreased to around 155 ft-lb., which is still much better than the last generation's max torque rating.
I have to admit that it initially looks like a sharp drop in torque, but the numbers on the right sidebar says differently.
And 160 hp, with that torque and that weight, may work out just fine.
Honda hits a lot of home runs, and this could be another. Look how long the first gen CR-V stayed in contention.
ejp
Overall it's a decent looking vehicle. I can't say that it's anything stellar, since it seems that Honda copied the Escape and Tribute and added on a rear spare to try to differentiate it from its two obvious mentors.
And like the redesigned Civics, the new CR-V seems to have extremely tight panel gaps.
When I first saw that power curve, I thought it had to be a mistake. When I recognized that the HP and torque numbers are represented in different spacings, it began to make more sense. The engine actually pumps out 90% of peak torque from about 2,200 - 5,600 rpms.
I am very happy to see that weight did not grow substantially. I was expecting a 200 lbs increase. The 5 speed only grew 68 lbs, though the auto earned 100+. Ken is right. The HP to weight ratio did not increase very much, but it's better than I'd expected.
I disappointed in the mpg increase. Only 1 mile per gallon at highway speeds. I'm also not happy with the 500 lbs increase in towing capacity. When we saw the spy pics of a CR-V towing the 1,500 lbs Haulmark trailer, I figured it had to be at least 2,000 lbs. Looks like that trailer was empty.
When it rains it pours, so many pictures to sort through all of a sudden. None of the pictures show the rear seats removed, or back flattened to make bed. Keep my fingers crossed.
Am also disappointed in the tow rating, guess I'll have to settle on a smaller boat. Maybe a canoe.
I still like the Tribute very much, too bad Ford messed it up. You can not drive it worryfree like my current Toyota, 10 years , not a single break down. Rav4 is no competition, design is 5 years behind Honda. XL7 is cramped and obsolete. Liberty too heavy, too tall. Highlander looks like a loaf of bread. Forrester is a station wagon. Santa Fe, I'm not ready for Koreans, maybe their women..
30% better bending rigidity
stainless stell exhaust
110,000 mile first tune up
durable timing chain
4 sensor, 3 channel antilock brake
moonroof standard on EX
64.5 db at 60 mph
side airbag standard on EX
4wd EX weight 3347 lb.
turning diameter 34.1 ft
toe control Mcpherson equals double wishbone
automatic trans is all new design
engine immobilizer system
remote keyless on EX controls gate window.
2.4L engine has balancer shaft
height lower than 01, roofrail excepted.
1. Styling: Just not my "cup of tea" to be honest... maybe it will "grow" on me but that grey lower cladding and bumper deal scream "Stripped model" even though it's on the upscale EX.
2. Interior: The e-brake is interesting as is the shifter... looks like they "might" have improved the column shifter but I simply prefer the RX-300/Highlander/Santa-Fe/VUE on the dash-mounted shifter setup. I mean, the 5-speed has it on the console, why not the automatic?
3. 160hp is better than 140, but you don't get the HP and Torque until close to 4k rpms.... from a stoplight, (1500 rmp) or at cruising speed (2500ish) you've got about 50hp on-tap. While this is common for Japanese 4-cyl motors, you'd think they would have given you more torque available from the get-go to make up for lack of a V6. Nissan's new 2.4L makes close to 180 hp with quite a bit of torque available off-line.
4. The 4-wheel double wishbone is gone... NO mac-setup is "just like" the double wishbone, sorry. Just drive beind a new 2001 Civic and you'll see that the rear wheels are always perfectly aligned with the road as the car moves up/down... then look at the fronts... they toe in/out over the same movement.
Of course, there are many improvements that shouldn't be overlooked either like the availability of a sunroof now and other interior features like the folding seats. However, the tailgate still is not designed for the North American market and still swings towards the curb forcing you to go into the street to load up the rear... How come the new Liberty is built in North american and foreign versions with it swinging the proper way? Also, there is NO rear bumper now... the spare tire is aparently designed to "take the brunt" in accidents and that's a mistake... even light rear taps are going to cause excessive damage to the tailgate/rear window.
All in all, I guess I expected something "more" but I need to remind myself that this is Honda here. Back in the 80's/early 90's the civic and accord replacements were always something really "different" and you couldn't wait to see how they would look. After seeing where the 2001 civic line "went" I guess I shouldn't be shocked that they didn't take any risks with the CRV replacement. Apparently, the upcoming mdx-based larger SUV warrants the CRV be kept "low-end". I am worried though because the new Camry, RAV and upcoming Corolla are VAST improvements over the previous models and the styling is great (and I never cared for toyota styling compared to Honda). The 2001 civic, while attractive, is going to be very "long in the tooth" in a couple years and I don't hold out much hope for the 2003 accord looking much different than the current model after seeing the civic/cr-v.
Of course, one of the great things about the 2002 CRV is that there is really nothing so VASTLY different to warrant waiting for it, honestly. I mean, with the current model (still very attractive I think) going for invoice in most places and now offering low financing, it sounds like the deal of the century. I mean, it has 20hp less than the new one (no big deal) but you get the 4-wheel double wishbone and all of the bugs are worked out of it by now I'm sure (not many to begin with). With 2002 models going at a premium I'm sure (those creeps are going to sell them at Retail+ for a good year or more I'm sure...) a 2001 EX or SE sounds like the way to go. Maybe if it had 180hp, 4wheel discs, improved styling, an updated tailgate design and other REAL improvements (not cost-cutting like the mac-strut setup) I could say, "I'm waiting for the new one".
15's don't cut it anymore
It does have 4 wheel disk brakes (though only the front set are vented).
I agree that generally a 2X bones set up is better (if tuned properly), but this is an SUVish car, not a performance vehicle. The new suspension allows for better crush zones and that's way more important.
Chas - I think Scname was referring to the engineering of the RAV4 and new CR-V, not the styling. I agree that the Toyota has much more futuristic styling. However it's functionality is no better than the current CR-V. This 2nd gen model far surpasses it.
Scname - Here's a few pics with the seat as bed-like as possible.
Through passenger window
Ghosted drawing
With the rear seats up
This last one does a good job of showing how the front seats fold, but the rear ones are in an upright position. You can imagine what it looks like with them leaning back.
This page shows the current model and how the seat base lifts up to make the rear more flat.
Karl's page
RAV4 - A much sportier vehicle. Good handling and good fuel economy as well. Functionally speaking, the rear seats are still too small. I wouldn't want to spend much time back there. The cargo area is also small. You have to remove the rear seats in order to get maximum capacity. You'll need a place to stow them and I hope you won't need them on long trips. Furthermore, max capacty is still within one ft. of the 1st gen CR-V. Little ground clearance will prevent you from getting over that berm that the snow plows left at the end of your driveway. The new RAV4 has slighty more power than the 1st gen CR-V, but acceleration is still no better. Despite the new CR-V's power advantage, towing is the same for these vehicles.
CR-V - More of a mom-mobile. Definately not sexy, but not freakish either. The 2nd gen CR-V is even more like a minivan than the first. It has a huge interior volume for both passengers and cargo. Sliding rear seats will let you accomodate both when necessary. Up to 72 cu.ft. are available without removing anything. That's only 3 less than the JGC and RX300. Need to smack that kid in the back? The CR-V has the pass-through. Not many folks use this, but as a dog owner, it has become a very handy feature for me. Other features include the picnic table (I use it all the time) and the wet/dry storage under the cargo area. Great for hiding dog food where the hounds can't get at it. Also great for wet gear (scuba, hiking clothes, swim suits, etc...). I've used the bed feature to haul long items inside the car (9-10 ft. lumber or pipe). The 2nd gen CR-V sems to be limited in this capacity, but the potential is still there. The aforementioned ground clearance is not just for off-roading and it's gotten me out of tight parking spaces, through unplowed parking lots, over the hill, and through the woods.
The RAV4 still has a lot going for it, but, from a strictly utilitarian veiwpoint, it's falling behind. Which is better always depends on how you are going to use it.
Thanks. ejp
I wonder if Honda has a "trailer brake clause," with this rating, as does Subaru. Subaru claims 2000 pounds towing—if the trailer has brakes. If the trailer doesn't have brakes, then the tow rating is only 1000 pounds. That's one area I'm hoping the new Forester will address.
I'm surprised that the wheels and tires remain the same size as before. I was hoping for larger 16" wheels.
Bob
1st gen RAV4 7.5"
1st gen CR-V 8.1"
2nd gen RAV4 6.7"
2nd gen CR-V 8.1"
Bob - I was also hoping for both a 2K tow rating and the 16" tires.
I keep wondering about trailering because I have a 5'x8' utility trailer that weighs 670 pounds empty. It's rated for 2900 pounds (gvw), so max trailering is important to me. Currently I tow it with our Explorer, which handles the trailer just fine.
Bob
I think actual mileage differences between the auto and 5-speed will be insignificant.
Bob
"the new CR-V boast more torque at 1,500 rpm than the outgoing model had at its peak. On paper, the improvement is dramatic, with the new model boasting a much more than adequate 162 pounds-feet of torque, while the outgoing model only had an anemic 133. And those numbers translate into real-world performance. The 2002's greater pulling power is immediately noticeable and probably the most significant improvement over the outgoing model.
The benefits are manifold. For one thing, acceleration is more responsive. Honda claims the new model is almost three seconds faster to 100 kilometres an hour. Passing trucks is much easier, and punch off the line is noticeably improved.
Because the power increase is predominately at low rpm, driveability is also much improved. The new CR-V doesn't have to rev half as hard as the old to get moving, resulting in much less commotion under the hood.
In fact, below 5,000 rpm, the new four is wonderfully smooth and quiet. Its noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) rivals that of the new 2.4-litre four that powers the new Camry and is superior to (the admittedly more powerful) Nissan Altima 2.5-litre four. The Escape's V6 will not have that large an advantage in the NVH department. Nonetheless, the Ford's 3.0-litre can boast 200 horsepower with even greater torque. It may not be needed, but it certainly is a marketing advantage.
Another marked improvement is the new CR-V's roadholding. Based on the current Civic platform, the CR-V rides on all-independent suspension -- MacPherson struts in front and double wishbones in the rear -- that is much firmer than the original. Body roll is much reduced, and the new CR-V feels more planted on the highway. It is also worth noting the Honda's steering is more responsive than that in most SUVs, feeling almost car-like in its handling abilities. The downside is a ride that can get a little bouncy over broken pavement."
http://www.nationalpost.com/specialreports/story1.html?f=/stories/20010831/677362.html
Bob - The current 1,000 lbs restriction is without brakes. They do not publish a braked number for legal reasons. Honda folks have stated that with the 5 speed, it'll handle 1,500 lbs, but they won't publish it. The new CR-V may be similar in that Honda will publish a lower number knowing that people will try to push it.
The brakes on the CR-V itself have been upgraded, but we'll have to see if they make a big difference. If they do, then I suspect that the 1,500 lbs limitation is based on legalities rather than capabilities.
a 02 crv lx or a 02 hyundai sonata gls. The crv does not have some features as the sonata but I
keep thinking "you only get what you pay for" I
can expect some good opinions from you all because
everyone on this board seems to be courteous and
knowledgable. Thanks in advance.
The back seat doesn't look like removable. Can't believe Honda screwed up. Backseat doesn't lie flat either. I need a sleeping arrangement on fishing trips. Don't think I can do that sitting up at 60 degree angle. Putting Tribute back on my list. 3500 lb towing is nice.
I take the CRV anyday, you get the reliability, twice the resale value, much better speed and handling than the Santa Fe at least. Don't know about Sonata,
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Maybe I can buy a press credential on Ebay ;-)
It also says ABS + TCS and VSA . I suppose TCS is traction control. VSA is Vehicle Skid Control ???????
What's the difference between VSA and traction control?
I'm guessing the fullmark version is the top model over in Japan?
Diploid - VSA and TCS are similar. There may be other differences, but TCS will brake one of wheels that gets power if it detects slippage. Typically it's used on FWD cars to assist with accleration and steering over slippery or broken surfaces. VSA uses the same single wheel braking idea, but it affect all four wheels. It will brake non-powered wheels to keep a car moving straight in the event of a skid. Drew has some good press material from MB on it. He's a big fan of the technology.
http://www.honda.co.jp/NEWCR-V/
Powered or non-powered wheels can be braked prior to a skid to guide the vehicle in the direction that the driver intends it to go. Here's more information on stability control and traction control, if you're interested:
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/46352/article.html
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/45992/article.html
Here's a video clip on stability control.
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Now, I'm considering have Paintless Dent Repair done since I don't want deal paint mismatch, etc.
I'm wondering if any other owners here have had PDR done on their vehicles and if they're satisfied with the results. And what should I expect in terms of cost for a "half-dollar" sized door ding?
I'd appreciate any recommendations, especially if they're in the San Antonio, Texas area.
Thanks!
Those steel loop at bottom of seat. No other use for them besides as release and carry handle I can think of. Wasn't able to enlarge this photo before.
Bob
Ken
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards