By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
The first car I purchased on my own was the true predecessor for the Barretta; a used 86 Cavalier Z24. A small 2.8L V6 with decent torque, thick tires, dual exhaust, ground skirts, and apparently a delete option for the head gasket.
Cavalier and Beretta sold along side for years. The Beretta was actually on the X-car platform, along with the Corsica, the Cav was the J-car.
Also, Baretta is a high quality gun. Beretta is the car. The gun company sued because the name was similar and the car was so low quality they thought it would hurt the name. GM settled out of court, i.e. they paid them off because apparently they agreed!
-juice
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Actually, I thought the KITT replica was pretty funny, but my first love is a custom van painted to resemble the Mystery Machine from Scooby Doo.
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Jeep Liberty was a close 2nd, but CR-V was a distant 3rd.
With all the 0% financing, I don't think the new CR-V can compete, unless Honda decides to do something about it.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler all have 0% offers now. Toyota jumped in, and so did Suzuki and Daewoo, if anyone cares.
-juice
Check out this link http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/7414/exterior.htm
to see a "Screaming Chicken"
BTW, it's my friends '76 TA
Honda says that their cars are scare w/o subsidized schemes, which are costing some auto makers big time - especially Ford and Chrysler. Honda said their sales fell slightly because they didn't have the cars to sell.
Expect the new CR-V to sellout. The Escape has had its day.
The second-gen CR-V scoots to 60 mph in 8.4 seconds. That's a second quicker than its forebear and comfortably below the 9.9-second average we logged among those 11 automatic Lilliputian utes last March. It's also 1.8 seconds quicker than an automatic Toyota RAV4, the vehicle that 28.3 percent of CR-V buyers "cross-shop" first. Still, the major payoff is this Honda's newfound perkiness for the first couple of seconds in each of the lower gears, where it's now way happier to lunge and squirt its way into holes in traffic.
Wierd about the link. I tried it from both a Mac and a Win2k box and it works fine...hmmmm
http://www.caranddriver.com/
Escape
60 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.8
C/D-observed fuel economy. . . . . . . . . . . . .17 mpg
CR-V gets 35% better observed gas mileage than Escape according to C&D.
Tagline to CR-V article:
"Plus — did we mention this? — it's built by Honda."
Not a small matter considering Ford's admitted huge quality problems.
I expect that the 5 speed CR-V will run 0-60 in the low to mid 8s. The automatic should do the same test in the high 8's. When comparing auto to auto, the Escape should still be faster. Though not by much. Does anyone really need an SUV for drag racing, though?
I think the remark about being "built by Honda" was a reference to that other SUV built on a truck chassis and bearing the Honda badge.
California People are so rude and impatient you better have the power to get out of their way.
Oftentimes merging is a whiteknuckle moment cause
of the agressive drivers who think they are giving
up something if they are couteous.The worst
are soccer moms in their expeditions.When I win the lottery I will get an MDX but till then a CRV
will do.
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
The reason why the press made a big deal over the popularity of the CR-V was because it was new and sold magazines. The Cherokee has gone unchanged for decades and wasn't a blip on the newsworthy radar. Unless, of course, you looked at automobile sales.
Diploid is right about the draw of a 6 cylinder, but there is also a good chunk of the market which wants a fuel efficient four banger. There are a finite number of people who want a small SUV, so the sales have to be split up.
I have no idea what the real numbers are, but, just for the sake of argument, let's say that 65% of the market wants a 6 cylinder. You have the Escape, Tribute, Xterra, Santa Fe, Vue, Liberty, Cherokee, 2 Suzukis, and the Tracker. That's 10 vehicles competing for the same 65% of the pie. In 4 cylinder land, we have the CR-V, RAV4, Sportage, and Forester. That's only 4 vehicles competing for 35% of the market. Granted, the vehicles on the 6 list are also available with 4 cyls, but the sales are largely insignificant.
We should also note that the '02 CR-V and the Forester both have enough speed to keep up with the 6 cyl competition. In addition to that, they both have significantly better fuel efficiency. This places them in a unique position where they can steal sales from either camp.
I expect that over the next year, the Escape and new CR-V will run neck and neck (about 9,000 units/month). The Liberty will probably better that and level out at 10,000 units (the same spot where the Cherokee left off).
I have a 2000 CR-V EX and have 2 questions regarding the optional Spare tire covers for the back, particularly the all metal one:
1) Could you please give me the best on line web site to purchase this item,
2) I am told that it is real easy to install this item. Is it true, because I am not really very handy.
Thank you as usual, "happy cr-ving"
Honda knows the market, and plays it well.
My wife just got an Odyssey and it's a great vehicle - nice ride, good power, nifty features. I'm sure the new CR-V is equally as impressive, given it's Honda genes.
I've liked what I've seen so far about the new CR-V, but I'm going to suspend making a decision until I actually SEE one on the road. I can't wait to see what kind of "presence" the new truck has. If it's anything akin to the MDX, then I might be hooked!
For more info, check this link. Go to "Powertrain" and scroll down about 3/4 of the page. Reading through this particular site is a good way to compare the old and new models.
http://hondanews.com/Forms/honda/crv/index_text2.html?KWx=crvtech
Jim - The new estimates may be off by a bit. The current ones are. The manual CR-V isn't supposed to have any advantage over the automatic, but almost all drivers of the 5 speed report higher mpg than our automatic counterparts. My own personal average for the past two years is over 25 mpg for mixed driving. This may end up being the same for the '02.
New engine rotates clockwise instead of old counterclockwise rotation. Necessitating a new transmission. Maybe this is the surprise ?
Scname - You may remember some talk a while back about Honda trying to remain independent by selling engines to other manufacturers (if not, here's an old link). Well, in order for the Honda engines to work with other trannies, they have to switch the spin to match what most of the industry has been doing.
The U.S. loves its Ford.
If, for example, the front wheels are on sheet ice and there is a ridge or something in front of them therefore creating a force to be overcome in a forward moving direction, if only a small portion of torque was delivered to the rear wheels it may not be sufficient to drive the vehicle ahead.
If on the other hand all of the torque could be applied to the rear wheels in this scenario it would have the desired effect. ie you move forwards. Hence my question of what percentage of power is transferred to the rear under extreme circumstances?
Cheers Yachtie.
RT4WD sends torque to the rear in proportion to the amount of slippage (more specifically, the greater the speed difference, the greater the power shift). If 100% of the torque were sent to the rear wheels, then the front tires would not have any power and are free to roll. If the rear wheels are pushing the vehicle, then the front tires are probably just rolling at the same speed. As soon as the front tires roll at the same speed, RT4WD returns power to the front.
In Yatchie's scenario, power would be removed from the front wheels until they slow to the same speed as the rear wheels. Then the power would begin to flow back up front.
http://www.honda2001.com/models/cr-v/specs/specs4.html
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/wgrfc/convert.html
Only an amorphous load can take full advantage, of course.
My analysis so far has the Highlander ahead on engine power and (I'm guessing here of course) highway driving comfort. The CR-V has a manual trans (which I generally drive, but am not adamant about), equal back seat room, and a considerably lower price... especially when it's loaded with goodies. I'm assuming it uses regular gas too, rather than premium.
I would probably be satisfied with the CR-V's smaller engine (I currently have an Accord with a 4-cyl and it goes just fine). But I'm wondering how much I'd be bothered by not having any sort of armrest with the manual trans. Any after-market console/armrests out there?
Your thoughts on this face-off are very much welcome.
Pros for the CR-V:
Better mpg.
Same quality and reliability with a lower pricetag.
More unique features.
Pros for the Highlander:
More cargo space. (About 600 gallon vs 503. That's a lot of fish.)
Longer list of options to pick from.