2001 - 2006 Honda CR-Vs

1…6162646667…314

Comments

  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Thorn - It's difficult to compare vehicle times unless they were performed on the same track, by the same driver, and in the same conditions. The slowest times I've seen for the Escape are actually the ones Edmunds just published in their minu-ute comparison. Our best bet would be to take an average of the times for both vehicles and compare those. We'll have to wait for more data on the CR-V before we can do that.
  • thornthorn Member Posts: 91
    I do find it bizarre that a C&D staffer would refer to the Escape as a "hot rod" at the end of the same story that indicated that the CR-V has better performance, 0-60 anyway, than that so-called "hot rod".

    The emphasis on sheer displacement over actual performance is, it seems, cognitive dissonance of the type that that publication was supposed to dispel. For years Honda has made its reputation as an automaker - and as the largest producer of gasoline engines in the world - by producing spirited "fours" that have routinely performed as well as other companies' "sixes" while providing superior economy of operation. You'd think that'd be the expectation by now.

    In any event, it seems that the Escape has "hot rod" gas mileage, if not performance. The CR-V at the least offers similiar performance with far far better gas mileage.
  • lmahlerlmahler Member Posts: 10
    I have a 2000 EX with auto trans and I truly love this vehicle. Here's my question: I wanted to order one of those nice looking wheel covers for the spare. My cr-v came with a black vinyl cover, however I have seen some with a beautiful metal cover. Does anybody know where I can get a good purchase price for this option? Also, I'm not very handy and would like to know if it is dificult to assemble? Thanx for your help.
  • thornthorn Member Posts: 91
    http://www.manhonda.com/store/honda/index.cfm?Level=17&Itemno=190&CFID=398192&CFTOKEN=6035843
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    While I am a proponent of powerful, efficient fours, 0-60 is not the most important measure of an engine. Honda relies on light weight and gearing to make small engines quick, but load them up to their gross vehicle weight limit, or put a trailer behind, and that's when the Escape's V6 shows its advantage.

    I'm sure the Hot Rod reference hints at the torquey nature of the Duratec engine.

    The RX300 is a lesser equipped Toyota in Japan, the Harriett IIRC? So if a CR-V competes there it does not mean it will compete here.

    BTW, I'm sure a 16" rim will fit, even 17". You just get tires with 1/2" less sidewall for each inch difference in wheel diameter. Read all about it at tirerack.com, they call it Plus Sizing.

    -juice
  • thornthorn Member Posts: 91
    Anyone seriously interested in trailer towing would avoid the Escape. There are far better alternatives.

    For the 99+% in the small SUV market that aren't ever going to want to tow a trailer, the CR-V arrangement offers a clear advantage. Honda's willing little quarter horse -though roomier than the Escape - offers better mileage virtually 100% of the time.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Yes there are better alternatives to towing than the Escape. There are also worse alternatives, one being the CRV.

    In its market slot the Escape offers decent (not great, but decent enough for most folks) towing. If you need more towing capability in a small ute, opt for the Liberty or Xterra.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Most people may not tow, but I bet it's pretty common for owners to load up the car with 4-5 adults and maybe some luggage, too. Especially with all the space provided, you'd expect people to want to use it, right?

    The V6 would show a clear advantage in those situations, with almost 200 ft-lbs. I'm just saying there are plenty of scenarios where the V6 will be better (not all, but definitely some).

    There is a strong anti-Escape sentiment on these boards, but it should not be dismissed. It is a prime competitor that Honda needs to take very seriously.

    -juice
  • thornthorn Member Posts: 91
    Various recent articles have been written which document the fact that many SUV's - even large ones - can't actually handle much more additional weight than an average passenger car.

    I suspect that any Escape trying to tow a trailer wouldn't be rated to carry a full complement of passengers or luggage, demolishing the above argument.

    btw, Ford quality is admittedly the worst of the Big Three and now has the largest gap with such Japanese brands as Toyota ever recorded. And Escape "quality" is considered dubious even by Ford standards.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Edmunds lists payload at 978 for the Escape, so it is rated to haul more weight than the CR-V (750 IIRC). It's also rated to tow a 3500 lb trailer, far more than the CR-V's 1500 lbs.

    For folks that don't need that kind of capability, a peppy and efficient 4 banger makes sense. That list includes me. I just don't think we should say that a 201hp V6 has no advantages, when clearly it does.

    -juice
  • scnamescname Member Posts: 296
    The new CRV EX has side airbag mounted in the front seatbacks. I think when deployed will push forward and up. This raises a question for me. I like to drive with window rolled down , my arm resting on the sill. Will the deploying airbag push on my arm ?

    Saturn Vue and many others has side airbags mounted in the roof. Better arrangment IMHO.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Most of the anti-sentiment of the Escape is (rightfully) due to its somewhat rocky product launch. What was it it, 5 or 6 recalls within the first 6 months?

    I'd be curious as to how '02 Escapes are faring... Has Ford put these problems (and any others) behind them, or are there still problems (new or otherwise)?

    Back to CRVs...

    Bob
  • thornthorn Member Posts: 91
    An Escape cannot safely tow that trailer with all that passenger weight. Heck, an Explorer can't do that.


    The NYTimes had a detailed story which punctured the ideas you have. The following link is similiar but omits the extra strain that a trailer would inflict on something like the Escape:

    http://www.epinions.com/auto-review-227A-395DDC8D-3A5040B1-prod5

    The NYTimes showed how many full-sized SUV's could actually carry less weight than say, a Honda Accord.

  • dill6dill6 Member Posts: 120
    Honda is cleverly designing cars that perform efficiently while providing the payload people need 98%+ of the time. Take a look as you drive around - how often do you see 4 or 5 adults in a car in this country? Almost never. Mom, Dad, kiddies in back, sure - even then that's more likely to be Mom OR, not AND, Dad. And there are more and more singles, and couples w/out kids, who just want to be able to take friends along occasionally. Of course, the vast majority of driving is done by lone individuals - again, just look around. When you do have a full load on board, just take it easy. No big deal.

    re towing - pulling anything weighing 3,500 lbs. with something like a stock Escape is a really poor idea, regardless of what Ford says. A friend of mine was heading cross country to medical school with his wife and two kids in an Explorer (more claimed capacity than Escape) with a U-haul behind. Some jerk cut him off, he had to hit the brakes firmly - but did not stomp on the pedal - next thing they know they're rolling along in the ditch being chased by a loaded trailer. Everyone eventually OK, but some serious injuries.

    Most midsize and smaller SUVs, with their long travel, relatively squishy suspensions, are poorly suited for towing anything heavy, IMHO, without serious modification.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It was 5 recalls, but Ford had bad attention from the press because of the tire fiasco.

    Note that BMW has had something like 12-13 recalls on its X5, including a few X5s that spontaneously combusted, yet BMW's reputation is still pretty much unscathed. Hey, life ain't fair.

    If you ask me, that link just proves my point. The CR-V is listed right there on that chart. The fact that it offers cavernous room just tempts owners to overload it even more.

    The Escape can carry more payload and has a little less space, so it's less likely to be overloaded.

    If you tow a trailer, you have to take the tongue weight into account. Generally there is about 10%of the trailer's weight on the tongue, so if you're pulling a 1500 lb trailer, you should subtract about 150 lbs from your payload rating. That would leave only 600 lbs on the new CR-V.

    -juice
  • thornthorn Member Posts: 91
    As I noted, both the Escape and the CR-V are virtually useless as family vacation trailer haulers. The difference is that the CR-V isn't pretending.


    And as you pointed out, that Escape V-6 may encourage people to think they can do what they shouldn't safely do.


    As for Ford and quality, the following quote from a ranking Ford executive comes from the WSJ, October 4, 2001


    ..."For the first time in the U.S., Toyota [Motor Corp.] has a double-digit lead" in quality, Mr. Scheele said. "Ford is, for the first time, significantly worse than GM or Chrysler," referring to Detroit rivals General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group....

    http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB1002143880816296120.htm


    I suspect those huge quality problems aren't coming from old models like the Taurus and Crown Vic, but from those new models like the Escape and Focus that have been repeatedly cited for same.

  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    This is an issue I've also long wondered about. Most manufacturers use 150 pounds as a guide for the average person. Well, that may be fine if you're dealing with 4 or 5 light people. What if you have 4 or 5 250 pounders? That's certainly not out of the question.

    Yeah, I agree, payloads (and towing) should be substantially increased—by law, if necessary.

    Bob
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    An interesting side note: Chevy, in all their truck/SUV brochures, spends a great deal of time (and ink) discussing towing a trailer, with and without trailer brakes.

    I don't have the brochures right in front of me, but IIRC, Chevy strongly recommends—for a full-size Silverado, that if the trailer doesn't have brakes, they say not to tow over 2000 pounds.

    Now we're talking a large full-size truck here. Their smaller mid-size TrailBlazer is rated much lower.

    Now, if the trailers have "proper" brakes, their tow ratings are much, much higher.

    Bob
  • thornthorn Member Posts: 91
    Here's the article I was referring to:


    September 7, 2001, Friday

    Some Bulky S.U.V.'s Have More Space Than Strength

    By CHERYL JENSEN

    Source: The New York Times

    Section: Automobiles

    1367 words


    Abstract

    Consumer Reports warns that many sport utility vehicles cannot safely carry as much weight as passenger cars, even though SUVs are much bigger and have spacious cargo compartments; comparisons; photos (M)

    www.nytimes.com


    Unfortunately, you have to pay for it.


    Also, Consumer Reports has an article

    Don't overload your SUV 12/00

    http://www.consumerreports.org/


    Both are available gratis at your library.

  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    The CRV is very roomy, and it's very easy to be tempted into overloading it. This holds true for most SUVs.

    Funny aside: The huge Ford Excursion, because of its tremendous curb weight, actually has a payload less than that of some Ford Windstars! It's payload is around 1600 pounds or so, which, for a vehicle that size, is absolutely lousy. A comparable 3/4 ton Chevy Suburban is rated to carry about a 1000 pounds (or more) more.

    Bob
  • scnamescname Member Posts: 296
    From the pictures I've seeing. The rear center headrest doesn't have the up down feature and I'm not sure it is even removable. There's much less gap between center headrest and seat fabric. Rear seats are foldable without removing the headrests. Still, I'd like to remove it for better rear view.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'm not defending Ford quality. They cut supplier margins, suppliers cut quality, which wasn't anything to brag about before the cuts. Pretty simple. Jac Nasser it out of there, his days numbered.

    Somehow, consumers are still snapping them up at a brisk pace. Beats me.

    -juice
  • thornthorn Member Posts: 91
    Free financing. Ford is stealing their own future sales, moving them forward. And losing money doing it too.

    Are you sure about the CR-V payload?

    750 sounds quite low. Can anyone corroborate that?
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    is also dependent on equipment. So it's hard to give a "blanket" number for all models of a particular vehicle, because the optional equipment varies so much from vehicle to vehicle.

    I know that Dodge now lists the payload of its pickups on the window sticker of new vehicles. I thinks some other trucks do so too.

    I think that should be required by law—for all new vehicles.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I am not 100% sure. I read that in one of the articles that reviewed the CR-V, and actually would like to know if anyone else can confirm? Did Bing mention it?

    Sources tend to vary, but the best source is the sticker in the door jamb. My Forester is rated for 1020 lbs, but most publications test automatic S models, which have lower ratings in the 850-950 range.

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I just checked my daughter's Prelude. Her car is listed at 700 pounds capacity. Guess what, my Explorer—which is a "utility" vehicle—doesn't have a payload rating listed! It lists the GVWR, and the front and rear axle ratings; no payload or trailer rating.

    This info should be there by law.

    Bob
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    that there's only a 50 pound payload difference between a '92 Prelude (which has rear seats meant only for midgets) and a CRV (assuming that CRV payload figure is correct).

    Bob
  • drew_drew_ Member Posts: 3,382
    The CR-V has side impact thorax airbags whereas the Saturn Vue also has side impact head protection airbags. They accomplish different things. One protects your head, and the other protects your thorax. Leaning your arm on the door sill is probably not recommended anyway, but refer to the owner's manual for more information.


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It may be incorrect, or it may be the figure for a loaded EX automatic.

    Now that I think about it, though, trucks aren't required to display the payload figures, only GVWR. So it's voluntary, up to Honda, essentially.

    -juice
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Scname - I have an Acura TL with the same side airbag design as the new CR-V. They are designed to be sensitive to the location of the passenger. For example, if a small child is placed in the seat, the bags will deploy differently. If someone is leaning against the door (asleep), it will not deploy. I've seen this in my TL. When my wife has leaned to one side in the passenger seat, like when removing a jacket in the car, the airbag indicator on the dash will come on. As soon as she's done, the light turns off. Dunno if it is sensitive enough to detect just your arm. This is something that you could check while on a test drive.

    Gross weight and towing numbers are calculated in this manner. Have some engineers determine the same amount that the vehicle can handle. Then subtract the salary of the company's lawyers from that figure. Honda tends to be very conservative with their ratings.

    Someone over at the CR-V IX just made an informative post on the subject. Different companies have different standards. The American manufacturers (in general) tend to play games to increase the numbers. Towing capacity, in particular, is big stuff to the big three. So the total numbers tend to reflect how much the vehicle can tow without any passengers or cargo. Honda uses a formula that includes a fully loaded vehicle for the MDX. We don't know for sure, but can probably assume the same measure is used for the CR-V. Similarly, there is no published number for braked trailers.

    Here's another example. Toyota was recently challenged for the interior capacity of the Sequioa. The published number was remarkably higher than the Ford and Chevy competition. It turns out, Toyota got that number by removing the second row of seats. Yet the seats are not "removeable" as some rear seats are in mini-vans or larger SUVs. Toyota manufacturing documentation actually states that a specific factory tools and torque should be used. IOW, this is not the sort of thing that the average American should attempt.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That sounds reasonable, but you still have to factor tongue weight. If you are pulling a 1500 lb trailer with a 150lb tongue weight, I doubt you could still use the full payload capacity.

    In other words, the tongue weight should be factored in to your payload calculation.

    I've heard some people say you should try to keep the trailer significantly lighter than the vehicle towing it, or you could end up with the tail wagging the dog.

    -juice
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    The anti-Ford sentiment here is simply a result of the vehicle's (or manufacturer's) strengths. People often compare opposites based on their strengths. Take the Mustang vs. Prelude debate. It based on handling vs. power. The Soob Forester topics are often filled with negative posts about truck-based vehicles because the Forester is such a car.

    In our case, the CR-V has a proven track record for reliability. It is something that we owners take seriously. It used to be that the Kia Sportage was the butt of all jokes, but the Escape has taken it's place because of all the press it received. It's also a much more serious contender.

    For the record, the Escape had five recalls and one production halt. It was not a result of the tires, it was transmission difficulties (clunking) that wasn't worked out prior to production. Also, since most of the recalls were issued by Ford, they were considered "stop sales", not recalls (which can only be issued by the NHTSA). I believe that the NHTSA did take action on most, if not all, after Ford voluntarily notified their customers. Kudos to Ford for acknowledging a problem and also doing something about. If only Mitsubishi had done the same instead of hiding all their customer complaints in an employee's locker.
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    "Tail wagging the dog", I think that's appropriate for this issue.

    We had poster at the CR-V IX asking about headers, CAI, and even a supercharger. He asked, "Can I tow more using these?"

    I answered, "Only if they they help you you stop more."
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    How does that explain why many pickups, especially large pickups (3/4 ton and 1 ton), are rated to tow much more than (tow) vehicle?

    The curb weight of some of these trucks is around 6000 - 7000 pounds or so, yet some can tow somewhere in the neighborhood of up to 14,000 pounds or so.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I said that half joking, because the Subaru Crew is notorious for Ford jokes. At a recent meet we saw two Fords - one being towed away from the parking lot were we met, and another (Tempo) on the side of the road with a sign saying "Free Car" on it. Of course everyone was driving right by! LOL!

    I've owned two and neither was reliable. Not sure I'd be willing to give it another shot, but I still like to look at all the options. Though when I did try to test drive an Escape, at Edmunds Live, the stop-build actually prevented me from doing just that. A sign from above? ;-)

    Bob: it doesn't, but I wouldn't want to have an 14000 lb trailer behind me in an emergency manuever no matter how powerful the pickup! Yikes!

    Scary. Can we switch to more pleasant topics? How much extra power do you think you'd get out of a set of headers on the new 2.4l? ;-)

    -juice
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    martin42
    I am disappointed new CRV still has 15 inch wheels. Anyone know if possible to put 16's on new CRV?
    You could put 20" wheels there. But with every inch, you may have to go down on the tire sidewall size to keep the overall diameter of the wheels intact.

    ateixeira
    Honda relies on light weight and gearing to make small engines quick, but load them up to their gross vehicle weight limit, or put a trailer behind, and that's when the Escape's V6 shows its advantage. The V6 would show a clear advantage in those situations, with almost 200 ft-lbs.
    The way CR-V (manual) is geared, I don't that the Escape V6 has any 'torque' advantage (past the engine). The advantage that it really has is in horsepower. 2002 CR-V (manual) uses the shortest gearing I have seen on any Honda, and that automatically means a lot of pulling power, even from 2.4 liter four banger.

    thorn
    Anyone seriously interested in trailer towing would avoid the Escape. There are far better alternatives.
    I agree. I have not seen a single Escape (or any mini-ute) towing a trailer of any size to date. So that is obvisouly not a selling point in this class of vehicles.

    scname
    The new CRV EX has side airbag mounted in the front seatbacks. I think when deployed will push forward and up. This raises a question for me. I like to drive with window rolled down, my arm resting on the sill. Will the deploying airbag push on my arm?
    I had the habit of using the door sill while driving, and have tried successfully to move away from it after reading about the possibilities in case of a side airbag deployment. In most cars, it would be a problem. But all Honda/Acura side airbags come equipped with sensors that will prevent deployment if the seat occupant is not in a safe position. A test drive with hands on the door sill should bring out "side airbag deactivated" light on the dash, which would mean that the airbag will not deploy.

    rsholland
    This is an issue I've also long wondered about. Most manufacturers use 150 pounds as a guide for the average person. Well, that may be fine if you're dealing with 4 or 5 light people. What if you have 4 or 5 250 pounders? That's certainly not out of the question. Yeah, I agree, payloads (and towing) should be substantially increased-by law, if necessary.
    A comparable 3/4 ton Chevy Suburban is rated to carry about a 1000 pounds (or more) more.

    My '98 Accord (4-cylinder/auto) is rated to carry 850 lb. With my dog, wife, myself, and three tightly packed large suitcases in the trunk, we barely get into 60% of the total capacity the car is capable of. Now, if the vehicle were designed for 8, it would be a different scenario.

    varmit
    Someone over at the CR-V IX just made an informative post on the subject. Different companies have different standards. The American manufacturers (in general) tend to play games to increase the numbers. Towing capacity, in particular, is big stuff to the big three. So the total numbers tend to reflect how much the vehicle can tow without any passengers or cargo. Honda uses a formula that includes a fully loaded vehicle for the MDX. We don't know for sure, but can probably assume the same measure is used for the CR-V. Similarly, there is no published number for braked trailers.
    I completely agree, and have no doubt about the different approaches. Some automakers may be giving more room between the most that the vehicle could take without breaking and the rating used to advertise.

    ateixeira
    That sounds reasonable, but you still have to factor tongue weight. If you are pulling a 1500 lb trailer with a 150lb tongue weight, I doubt you could still use the full payload capacity. In other words, the tongue weight should be factored in to your payload calculation.
    My four cylinder Accord has a less potent engine than the 2002 CR-V (both considered automatic), but is rated with a payload of 850 lb. I will have to check, but if the Accord could tow 500 lb., the chassis is designed for something like 900 lb. of net payload (following a 10% formula). Assuming the same for CR-V, with a towing capacity of 1500 lb, the tongue weight plus additional payload would also come to about 900 lb. (or more, perhaps depending on transmission).
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    ateixeira
    Can we switch to more pleasant topics? How much extra power do you think you'd get out of a set of headers on the new 2.4l? ;-)

    I'm guessing 190 HP should be possible with dual stage intake as well.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    does it sound like there are no established SAE standards for towing and/or payloads? I find it hard to believe that each manufacturer has its own way of calculating this. There must be some uniform standard by which these figures are arrived at.

    Bob
  • sandhurstsandhurst Member Posts: 37
    Both the CR-V and the Forester have 3-star scores in the Rollover Resistance Ratings, yet the CR-V has to post a rollover warning on the visor while the Forester does not. Does anyone know what the formula is for calculating rollover resistance? Are the centers of gravity in these two vehicles really that different?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    sandhurst,
    It is quite possible that CRV is classified as a light truck by EPA compared to Forester, hence different requirements. I believe rollover risk warning was supposed to be put on light trucks (still not sure if minivans were covered, but most of them do get 4-stars)
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Sandhurst - The stickers are applied by a bureaucrat with really thick glasses. The rollover ratings are not taken into account. In fact, the decision to apply those stickers was made before they started with the rollover calculations. I believe the Forester's exemption is based simply on the fact that some other bureaucrat classified the Forester as a car.
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Oops, Robert beat me to the post.
  • sandhurstsandhurst Member Posts: 37
    Thanks, robertsmx and varmit. Our government works in wondrous ways.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    too much credence on these government rollover tests. They've been widely criticized by the automotive industry as being a farce. It's a very "basic" formula that the government uses to achieve these ratings. One key factor that is completely ignored, is the impact the suspension has on rollovers (or in preventing rollovers).

    This one time I agree wholeheartedly with the industry.

    Bob
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Excuse me for dragging the topic back to the boring topic about towing, you brought up a point about 7K lb. vehicle able to tow 14K trailer. The vehicle may have the required payload capacity. But the real point to address would be the suspension setup. Perhaps they avoid putting springs on the rear.

    For that matter, isn't that pretty close to what an 18-wheeler does in concept?

    Back to CRV.
  • gsogymratgsogymrat Member Posts: 97
    I'm not buying a CR-V because of it's lack of towing ability. But I disagree that a small SUV can't tow. My 1999 Jeep Cherokee does an excellent job of towing my 1800 lb. camper and the Liberty should tow as well or better. I also don't see why the Escape, Tribute, Santa Fe or Vue should have a problem towing a small trailer considering they have comparable weight, horsepower and torque. They are all rated to tow at least 2000 lbs. If the suspension is an issue that can be modified relatively inexpensively compared with shelling out $30K for a large class SUV such as an Explorer, Grand Cherokee or Highlander. As someone pointed out most of the concern with towing is not the ability of the vehicle to actually pull the load but the ability to stop. That is why trailer brakes, not exceeding 55 mph and increased following distance is important when towing.
  • pal086pal086 Member Posts: 33
    Hi,

    We recently haggled with a dealer and got a price of 24100 (before taxes) for a 2001 CRV SE.

    Wondering if this is a good price ?

    We added options like roof-rack, fog lights, 6-CD changer, passenger arm-rest, upgraded speakers, security system etc.

    The add-ons were $2600 -- I priced the stuff from the Honda web site and found that they were charging $600 for the installations. The dealer said that he could not give us any discount on that since the service and parts dept decided on these prices. So we were getting the car itself for about $200 over invoice. That sounds like a good deal. But I think I am getting a bit fleeced on the installed options.

    I really liked the spaciousness of the car and the fact that you can totally collapse the rear seats. But I got put off by the location of the power window switches, height adjustments weren't too good either and the rear view mirror is really tiny (actually test drove a Forester before that with a auto dimming mirror w/ compass !).

    But we might just buy it just for the reliability and the low APR Honda is offering now (3.9% for 60 months !!!)
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    The point I was simply making was that the tow vehicle doesn't have to be as heavy or heavier than the trailer that is being towed.

    Granted, these HD pickups and 18-wheelers are set up from the get-go to tow; not so for a CRV, or any other small SUV. They can be made to "better handle" trailering duties, but because of their design, trailering will never be their first or primary task in life.

    Bob
  • barnonebarnone Member Posts: 118
    i would suggest purchasing some of your goodies
    on-line and install them yourself. there are
    a lot of helpful how-to's in www.hondasuv.com
    which had been an great help for me too.

    but if money is no object to you, the price you
    got is excellent :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Robert: yes, that is what an 18 wheeler does, but how many jack knifed semis have you seen in your lifetime?

    I don't expect anyone with a CR-V is going to pull a trailer that weighs more than the car, though. Few will even test the 1500 lb limit.

    I use my hitch for hauling a bike rack more often that pulling a trailer, but it's been nice when I do need it.

    -juice
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy

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.