2001 - 2006 Honda CR-Vs

jimxo · October 2001

I live in Chicago area and was quoted this price (2002) at Honda of Lisle, IL. Call for yourself 630-852-7200.

Even at 3% over which is good, we need to drive this car first before I commit. I already pute money down on a 2002 Camry which will arrive in late November. If the CRV floats my boat I may pass on the Camry.

diploid · October 2001

But Honda's Odyssey is selling at MSRP in most areas and there are waiting lists for it still.

If the CR-V gets this type of response (which I'm hoping it won't), I really doubt that the CR-V's won't be sold at invoice. It wouldn't even surprise me that you would have to pay OVER MSRP, not just MSRP, if demand exceeds supply.

I've had bad experiences with most Honda dealers since I always shoot for the cars that everyone else wants. Plus the fact that I always demand 36 months financing at the lowest APR possible from American Honda.

wellresearched · October 2001

I live in New York State. Quite frankly since 9/11 I've wished is was Nebraska...Not feeling very safe these days. Don't even know if a new car is a responsible thought any more.

tomsr · October 2001

Get the car you really want,If you let these
fanatics keep you from enjoying life then they have won.We are all going to die someday and if
you live in fear you are already dead.Anyhow I like the looks of the CRV and have been a Honda fan for years.Do we know what the basic price will be? Any thing over 20 grand is overpriced
in my humble opinion.

punxy · October 2001

Does anyone know of a reasonable dealer in or around the Philadelphia area? I would even consider NYC or DC if the price is right. Thanks

corynat · October 2001

I know that I get better results with the AC by leaving it on Recirculate. It is not the best AC in the world, but I have had worse. Does a decent job. I am in NC, so I see decent hot weather. It might be a Japanese thing. Friend has a Toyota and another guy I know has a Mitsu and they are about the same. My wife's Ford, on the other hand, will freeze you out.

ateixeira · October 2001

Tint the windows. You can virtually eliminate the green house effect. A CR-V with moonroof has 9 big windows! Close the moonroof shade if you have one, and install a cargo cover so the area that needs to be kept cool is smaller.

An MDX+8" sounds good. Yes, demand for the Ody has outstripped supply, but they just started production at the 2nd factory.

Any how, now that demand is way down (for the entire industry), I think with two factories up and running they can finally get supply up to snuff.

If I decide to get a minivan, though we're still undecided on what type of vehicle we'll purchase next, the Ody would be a strong candidate if prices dip a little.

-juice

h1vc · October 2001

Is the mdx+8 going to be under honda or acura?

rsholland · October 2001

The (Honda) Passport is long due for a replacement. I have heard for some time that it will be a larger vehicle, perhaps even Tahoe size.

I only hope, even though it's based off the Odyssey/MDX, that it will offer true off-road capability with a low range as part of the package.

Bob

raybear · October 2001

Wait. Patience pays off. There will be deals, don't go crazy looking for one before the cars hit.

diploid · October 2001

With the exception of the current Passport, which isn't even designed by Honda, the MDX and CR-V (not counting the HR-V since it's not in our market) are not hard-core off roaders.

I frankly don't think Honda wants to build a true off roader.

varmit · October 2001

Jimxo - Sounds like you have a good deal going there. Be careful with financing charges or tacked on charges not included in the "sticker" price. Let us know how you make out.

Bob - While discussing future plans with a Honda Rep at the Mid Atlantic CR-V Meet, we were told not to expect an off-road package from the Passport replacement. This guy is just a Rep, though, so take it for what it's worth.

ateixeira · October 2001

I'm sure they'll be FWD standard, with the MDX's AWD system optional. If it's bigger it'll probably be less capable off road.

If so, they'd be following Toyota's strategy with the Highlander/RX300. That means good value for the Honda model.

-juice

dindak · October 2001

Honda does not really need a Tahoe size SUV now. Honda needs a midsize SUV much more. A big SUV will continue to push the largest market to Trailblazers, Explorers, Pathfinders and Highlanders.

canadiancl · October 2001

Honda needs something in between the MDX and CR-V in size and price. I personally find the MDX already too big, especially the width.

varmit · October 2001

I'm guessing it'll boil down to price. I was thinking the same thing; Honda doesn't need a sull-sized SUV. But then I thought about pricing. If Honda offers a Tahoe sized SUV at roughly the same price as a well stocked Highlander, who is going to complain?

diploid · October 2001

They're probably going to build a very small number, and price it accordingly (28K-35K) and see how the public reacts.

Toyota thought its Sequioa would make a dent in the charts- and so far it's selling well, but not to the point where it threatens the Tahoe or Expedition.

canadiancl · October 2001

I would! I saw the Toyota Sequoia at the auto show. Very nice vehicle, looks and otherwise. But I would never buy something that big. For the 10% of the time that you would actually need something that big, you'd have to put up with all that excess bulk, gas-guzzling and parking headaches the other 90% of the time when it's used to commute to the office, supermarket, kids' schools, etc. Now if I was retired and spend my time traveling around the country....

canadiancl · October 2001

What a coincidence. I too will be scutinizing and comparing the CR-V and the Camry in my short list of possible near-future purchase. I thought I would be the only one who's trying to decide between 2 very distinctly different types of vehicle. Our '97 CR-V has been a faithful commuter/kidsmobile, and I was all set on replacing it with the new one, but all of a sudden my wife's got this idea that she really wants/needs the added comfort and quietness of a V6. And there aren't any V6 SUV in this price range. Don't suggest anything from one of the Big Three (which includes the Triscape twins), or Suzuki. And she didn't like the looks of the VUE after seeing it at the auto show last year.

varmit · October 2001

Now whoa, there! The Sequoia is a good 15" longer and 8" taller than the MDX. It's more than 1,000 lbs heavier, as well. The rumors stated a vehicle 8" longer, so I'd expect a stretched MDX, not a Unimog.

canadiancl · October 2001

I suppose the Sequoia is too extreme of an example

But honestly I'm even put off a bit by the size of the MDX. I don't mind the length so much, but the width is just too much. Maybe part of it is due to the fact that where I live seem to have super narrow parking spaces. But I thought Honda should have made the MDX slimmer (and hoping they would for the Honda version). Also, when it's so porky, it looks too much like a minivan (the MB M-class is also guilty of this).

dudka · October 2001

honda made its way into american market with small and fuel efficient cars. i don't really approve of any of the japanese cars getting bigger and bigger every year. my 99 civic was larger than my 88 accord. the new cr-v is rather big, even the current cr-v is bigger than what i wanted. i can't imagine honda making tahoe sized vehicle. first of all, they should go back to where they started from, small, fuel efficient, fun to drive cars. HR-V is the prime example of what most of my generation (early to late 20's) would love to have. first the price tag would not be in the mid 20's, second it would still be a purposefull car/truck. the explosion of hatchback and compact wagons is due to people like me, who don;t want a big truck, but want lots of cargo space for stuff, and friends. bring the civic hatch, bring the hr-v, bring the 4wd civic sedan. is it too much to ask?

thorn · October 2001

Test Drive: Honda's new 2002 SUV shines
http://www.usatoday.com/money/columns/healey/2001-10-05-crv.htm

rsholland · October 2001

confirmed what I've suspected all along about the RealTime 4WD"The rear wheels kick in when the front ones slip, which sometimes is an instant too late to stay on the road. It's probably the least-capable four-wheel drive system among CR-V's logical rivals."

Incoming...

Bob

suvshopper4 · October 2001

Good CR-V review by Healey in USA Today.
I wonder, though, how significant the timing difference is for a RealTime vs. a full-time AWD system. Sure, every second counts in a slippery situation, but still, is it significant? I don't know; are we talking about a fraction of a second?

barnone · October 2001

*yawn*

mikefm58 · October 2001

I live in Orlando Florida where the temp. is over 95 degrees for most of 4 months. Leave the A/C on recirculate so it cools already cool air. It does take what seems like a long time to get cool but the CRV is the first vehicle I've owned with the new non-CFC A/C. Hope this helps.

drew_ · October 2001

I think the reviewer (which by the way, I'm no way a fan of) is trying to say that you need to lose traction in order to regain it. Once you lose traction, if only for an instant, it is possible that you will slide wide; once the wheels lose traction (i.e. spin), you lose nearly all directional control.

For 4WD and AWD system specific discussions, I invite all of you to also contribute to the 4WD & AWD systems explained discussion topic.

Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards

kens · October 2001

The delay in RT4WD isn't going to be an issue under most driving conditions. At worst, it may not be as confidence inspiring compared to the smoother action of a full time AWD system. Typically, full time AWD systems have torque going between the front and rear tires at all times so there's less chance of slip to begin with.

The delay might be an issue under very slippery conditions such as climbing a steep incline covered with loose gravel. The on-off action could result in a bit of a herky-jerky ride that may impair forward progress. Again, it's better not to slip in the first place.

Also, I've read that because RT4WD wasn't designed to be engaged full-time, it can overheat after long periods of continuous on-off cycling. One owner reported it being inoperative for a few minutes until the system cooled off after which it worked fine again.

Digressing a little here, but one other feature a part-time AWD system won't be able to offer is the inherent neutral handling characteristics provided by full time systems.

Ken

drew_ · October 2001

Since there is no centre differential (same with the MDX's VTM-4 AWD system and the Isuzu Trooper's TOD system, BTW. Both of these do not have centre differentials), the system is definitely not designed to activate on a non-slippery surface when turning or binding can occur.

barnone · October 2001

if the rt4wd overheats (bringing back the cr-v to a 2wd setup), how long does it take for the fluid to cool off? assuming we are in snowy conditions..?

varmit · October 2001

That was a pretty good review. He covered everything and noted both features and flaws (without exaggerating) and gave a good impression of what his expectations were. Most reviewers simply say good/bad and don't give a measure. This is often the most helpful part of the review. For example, his comparison of the CR-V's weight to the RSX is outrageous. It's an SUV fer cryin' out loud. So based on that, I can put his comments into perspective.

To the best of my knowledge, there are two reports of overheating. Hardly worth getting worked up about.

I disagree with Ken's speculation about the problem. If the system is fully engaged for long periods of time, then the two clutch packs are locked. There's nothing to generate heat. It would be the constant engage/disengage cycle that would generate heat. From my own experience, I've driven a constant 3-4 hours in 6" of snow on snowmobile trails without a problem.

I thought this bit was interesting: "Passenger volume is 106 cubic feet, qualifying as midsize." Anybody know what the cut-off point is?

kens · October 2001

Actually, I did point out that the system can overheat with "continous on-off cycling". But you're right about if it were engaged full time, you wouldn't have the cycling. My mistake of combining the two. ;-)

However, if the system were to be fully engaged, doesn't that imply that the front tires need to be spinning faster than the rear tires the whole time? How likely is that scenario vs. constant on-and-off cycling?

Here's the write up I was talking about:

http://www.tiac.net/users/daveread/horta/comparo.htm

Ken

barnone · October 2001

so why do scribes complain about the rt4wd?
they judge it as ineffective and yet they
have not experienced it first hand.

look at them pix and movies in www.hondasuv.com

be it sand snow or mud, the cr-v keeps on going..

and going...

and going...

and going...

and going...

rsholland · October 2001

the herky-jerky on/off effect as a possibility. I too have wondered about that, especially if it occurs on a slippery corner. Wouldn't that have an effect on oversteer or understeer when it engages or disengages? And... could it upset the handling (even just a little) in cornering situations?

Bob

rsholland · October 2001

two Subarus with AWD, and an Explorer with Control Trac. Control Trac is an on-demand auto 4WD similar to the CRV, except that it's RWD-based, where as the CRV is FWD-based. When Control Trac kicks in I can feel it. It's not transparent like the Subaru system. And yes, it too keeps going, and going, and going... Just not a smoothly as the Subies do.

Bob

diploid · October 2001

I can't agree more. The CR-V is a capable mild off-roader, but their AWD system is certainly not the best of the bunch.

drew_ · October 2001

Now that was interesting! The old RT4WD system used a centre viscous coupling that shifted power from the front wheels to the rears when front wheel slippage was detected. The mechanical bits of the system sound like they're quite similar to the Subaru manual tranny AWD system (except for the part about the Honda's being FWD bias till slippage). As such, the current RT4WD only shares its name with the old system.

Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards

diploid · October 2001

Mr. Healey described the new system just the same way as I remembered the "old" system working.

It's adequate- but no paradigm by which other AWD systems should mimic.

kens · October 2001

Drew,

Yes, it's interesting that they went from the VC to the current set up. Not sure why they would do that since VCs are known for their simplicity and reliability. My guess would be that they had problems integrating it with ABS.

I guess the argument for better fuel economy also wouldn't apply since the previous generation was also FWD until needed.

Ken

Spyponder · October 2001

In three years of driving our CR-V the only time I've ever noticed the slippage of the RT4WD kicking in was when I was starting from a dead stop on loose dirt or snow/ice. And even then it was only barely perceptible - the rear wheels kick in and you're on your way. When you are driving along and hit a slippery or loose surface, the engagement of the RT4WD is not noticable. The slippage is only there in high-torque situations, like when you stomping on the gas when starting up. If you are stomping on the gas at speed on an icy road, you deserve to be in a ditch. That writer's comment about the CR-V's 4WD being "sometimes an instant too late to stay on the road" is irresponsible journalism, IMO.

beatfarmer · October 2001

A standard VC is incompatible with ABS. Some sort of center diff has to be incorporated in order to allow the functioning of ABS. RT4WD deactivates when the brakes are applied.

I agree with Spyponder about the journalism.

suvshopper4 · October 2001

Me three.

I expect that the RT4WD is adequate 99.9% of the time. The writer was splitting hairs.

I know: What if my family is involved the other .1% of the time? Well, I guess I could drive a Hummer. That would probably be safer.

varmit · October 2001

Sorry Kens! I misread your post. You were correct the first (and second) time. mea culpa!

The writer's comments regarding RT4WD are based on a largely theoretical position. He is correct. A split second after slippage could be a split second too late. The question is a matter of degree. How often will it matter? Probably not in my lifetime, but the possibility is always there.

I was more interested in his comments about the automatic gear selector and the fact that it might possibly "spear" an occupant in the event of a crash. It would have to be an unbelted occupant, but how many people wear belts? Not as many we'd like to think. I'd have to see the set up myself (I suspect that it's too close to the wheel), but it could be a problem.

Diploid - I'm not sure if you're reading the comments wrong. The "old" system in this case is the one used in the old Civic Wagon. Honda also called that system "RT4WD". The CR-V uses a system that functions the same way (it detects slippage and engages), but it is mechanically different. It appears to be the same between 1st gen and 2nd gen.

With regard to proven reliability, the "new" RT4WD is also used in the Stream, other Civic models, and the Ody as well (though it's isn't sold here). All have strong records for reliable drivetrains.

I'd have to agree with Healy's comment about the CR-V's AWD system being one of the least effective for slippage, but it's also one of the most fuel efficient, reliable, and compact. So it depends on how you are grading.

dill6 · October 2001

the bottom line is, if you want to go rallying, you better get a Subie. If you just want to get up to the ski hill and back on a powder day, the CR-V should do fine. True? Hope so - I'm in the latter catagory and planning to get a '02.

Canadiancl: Take a look at the Accord V-6 as well as the Camry. Many feel it has more personality and fun to drive factor than the Toyota. I think its better looking too.

stever · October 2001

dill6 · October 2001

oh yeah...my .02 on the review - I'm struck (favorably) by his comments on the manual gearbox, which is my preference, improved driving postion too. My biggest gripe with the orig. CR-V, and the reason I didn't buy one, was the overall 'dull' driving experience. I'm hoping that with more power, lower center of gravity, more 'normal' driving position (and without the wacky angled steering wheel!) that handling and performance will be more satisfying. I know it'll never be a sports car, but a little better all around performance, please.

Does anyone else wonder why many reviews seem to mention 'odd' or 'extreme' styling cues?? If anything, from the photos it looks more conventional to me than the original. That's one area, exterior looks, where I think I may actually prefer the original. Hard to say until you see it in person though.

diploid · October 2001

I know someone mentioned this already, but the comparison to the RSX was downright skewed.

rsholland · October 2001

That's rather extreme, wouldn't you say? As to the RT4WD, the writer didn't say anything that is inaccurate, misleading, or distort the truth.

I'd say it's more just a matter of a difference of opinion.

Bob

canadiancl · October 2001

In a way he's being extra responsible by pointing out every possibility, no matter how remote the chance of it happening.

dill6: Actually I have been also looking at the Accord V6. In fact in one of earlier posts (somewhere) I argued how it is hard to justify going for the Camry if you look at prices and compare it to the Accord feature by feature.

2001 - 2006 Honda CR-Vs

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy