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
I told him today that I may know someone else who was interested & he said to pass his info to you. He did say he is selling closer to sticker since, but he will try to help you out. In addition to the car itself, I did get some add-ons, so perhaps that was where he made back some of his money.
- The 3.0L Escape definitely has more power and you can really feel it.
- The auto tranny in the CR-V is smooth but it seems they programmed it not to downshift as much. I guess this was done to eliminate annoying downshifts but it seemed sometimes it needed to downshift when it didn't. This re-affirmed my desire for a 5 spd MT.
- Brakes did not seem as strong as the Escape's, although I think this is a pad material issue as Escapes are constantly covered with brake dust.
- Handling seemed similar although the Escape felt more "lively".
- The CR-V was more smooth, more quiet, and seemed much better put together.
- The front leg room in the CR-V is just adequate for me (5' 10"), much less than the Escape's.
- The rear leg room in the CR-V is more which seems to be the trade-off Honda made.
- Overall space seems a tad larger everywhere in the CR-V.
- The rear seat arrangement in the CR-V smokes the Escape's.
In the end the CR-V was not as "fun" to drive as the Escape. However, the CR-V seemed like a much better built vehicle. Also, the CR-V is more car-like which is actually what I want. The EPA listed mileage is better in the CR-V, and early posts here indicated that the CR-V is at least as good as the EPA numbers in real life. In the end I am getting the CR-V. The Escape is more fun to drive, but I think CR-V will be more fun to own.
This link should get you to the page for the subwoofer.
Alex - That shows a sub for the '02. I think Slugline was interested because you remarked about a sub for the "old CR-V".
Thanks!!!
Here is the link to that site if anyone is interested.
http://199.105.105.110/carsearch.asp?VehicleType=CRV
Welcome to the forum Cqphil.
1. CRV is generally more attractive
2. Hyundai's are getting better, but Honda's are generally more reliable and will give you FAR better resale value down the road.
3. There are more Honda dealers to shop around or in case you repairs.
The Santa Fe will have more options for the same money. It also has considerably more cargo space. The fact that it offers a V-6 is moot. The extra 500 lbs slow it down. Unless you plan on towing, the V6 won't mean a thing. The warranty is the best, but I *think* it still only covers the drivetrain.
While the CR-V offers less equipment, the things that are standard are less likely to break. Expect better mpg, better crash safety, and lower emissions. Neither one of these buggies is an off-roader.
I would also add the Saturn VUE to your list of possibles.
The cons include "worse than average" reliability, according to CR, relatively poor gas mileage, and likely bad resale value. If it breaks a lot you still have the hassle of going to the dealer to get things fixed.
The styling is polarizing. My little brother (16) loves it, but I kind of think it looks like an angry Pikachu. He likes Pokemon so that explains it!
Honda really ought to offer a better warranty. Reliability is great, so think about it - how much would it really cost them? Toyota recently extended theirs, so Honda ought to match it. It's extra piece of mind.
The CR-V has been solid, but I'm sure the 1999 Odyssey owners with bum transmissions wished the powertrain warranty had not expired at 36k miles. Many buyers go ahead and factor an extra $1000 in the price for a longer warranty.
The new Civic isn't as reliable as the previous generation, so time will tell if the new CR-V suffers the same fate. I think it'll still be better than average.
Pretty wild Liberty rollover story. I think Jeep needs to take another look at that suspension. Perhaps it's tuned too aggressively, or the tires are too wide, but they really ought to skid before they tip onto 2 wheels or roll.
-juice
Bob
My understanding of DC's explanation was that the culprit was the technique of driving it hard between cones and suddenly braking to make the turn. AW even remarked that the technique was derived from autoX racing. Not something you'd want to do in any SUV. The difference in the pavement just proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back.
The Liberty has lifted wheels in other tests, but no one else has reproduced the rollover. Even with the same driver and course, the accident happened only once. Several runs were made on the same track. Could've been driver error as much as anything else. I wouldn't draw any conclusions, yet.
2). What the maximum speed of the new CR-V? The older version has about 100 MPH, relative low compared to other miniSUVs and similar sized engines found in other Hondas. Does it contribute to its sluggish accelarations in the 60-70 MPH range often found and complained aobut?
Thanks!
How does it compare to a Soob and which is better? Depends on what you consider better. If you want max power distribution to the wheels, then the Soob is better. If you are going to be driving across a frozen lake every day, then get the Soob. No question.
However, as a system, RT4WD is more fuel efficient. The '02 CR-V and Soob get about the same MPG rating with similar engine power, but the CR-V's engine is pulling from 200 to 300 lbs more weight, is less aerodynamic, and is geared lower. It's likely that also gets more power to the wheels because of fewer complications in the drivetrain. If the CR-V had a full time AWD system, then it might be more slugish and less efficient.
Basically, it depends on how you are going to use it. I have never had a problem with the RT4WD CR-V, but if you feel that you'll need all four wheels churning 24/7 every day of the year, then get the Soob. IMHO, you can't go wrong with either.
Max speed? I hope this isn't why you want a good AWD system!
CR-V is a fair combination of fuel efficiency and 4wd people demands for an SUV.
Will buy one when dealers sell them at $250 above invoice w/o any markups. May have to wait a year so. Will see.
The Honda was roomier, especially the rear seat which had lots of knee room.
I thought the Honda front seats were more comfortable, though my wife thought they were about the same.
The Subarus were more sporty in their handling, ride and power. (Not quite fair on the power since the Subies were 5 speeds and the only Honda available was an auto. Still, I was expecting the Honda to have more power than it did. Definitely seemed weaker.)
The Honda ride might have been better (or maybe it was the seats.)
The Honda has very poor visibility out the rear and right side. It helps to take out the center rear head rest, but the rear window is too high and the rear side windows are too small.
We drove a CRV with the Brown interior, which we liked, contrary to what others have said. Each to his own.
As mentioned above, the Subaru's AWD definitely seemed superior in the ice and packed snow, even the L model which had the same tires as the CRV.
Overall, they were all nice in different ways.
the lease payment you received seems very good....just some things for you to know though...although you didn t pay a bank fee up front --american honda has an acquistion fee of $550 which is rolled into the pmt...also by adding .001 to your money factor the security deposit can be waived....a way to calculate your interest your paying is to take the money factor and multiply it by 2400. if you would like to give me some specifics i could help you see if you got a really good deal or not....i would need to know the model crv leased, the gross capitalized cost, the money factor used to calculate your payment and the amount of sales tax your state charges...some good things about going with the american honda lease is it does include gap insurance with the acquistion fee, and a no wear and tear clause up to 1500 dollars, and no dispostion fee(a cost you pay to give the car back to the bank. if you or anyone else has questions about leasing i would be glad to help explain...as was said earlier leasing is not for everyone, but can be a nice alternative if you do your homework.
I just sent you an email with the info on the dealer that I bought the 2002 EX from. Let us know how it goes for you.
Does anyone else here have the 2002 CR-V "brochure" available at Honda dealerships? I was flipping through one and I thought I saw somewhere that the CR-V was consider a LEV - low emission vehicle. However, I'm 99.999999999... percent sure that I misread the brochure and it was only extremely wishful thinking on my part. I do want to confirm the 2002's emission status one way or the other.
After you get through laughing... does anyone know if the 2002 CR-V has lower emission than the previous generation?
varmit: as for top speed Car and Driver claimed 109 mph which was the governed speed, i.e., they hit this in both 4th and 5th gear in the manual transmission model.
i forgot something-- i will also need to know the residual percentage used in calculating your lease. thanks. magickman42
The '02 CR-V is considerably more eco-friendly than the '96-01 models. The '02 is a Tier 2 LEV. These regulations will go into effect in 2004 and last through 2010. The Tier 2 standards are similar to the Tier one regulations, but have lower tolerances for PM and NOx.
These are the ratings for Tier 1 (current standards). Sorry about the formatting, but there are page width restrictions that make this difficult.
LEV 50,000 miles 5 years
NMOG = 0.075
CO = 3.4
NOx = 0.2
PM = -
HCHO = 0.015
LEV 120,000 miles 11 years
NMOG = 0.090
CO = 4.2
NOx = 0.3
PM = 0.08
HCHO = 0.018
ULEV 50,000 miles 5 years
NMOG = 0.040
CO = 1.7
NOx = 0.2
PM = -
HCHO = 0.008
ULEV 120,000 miles 11 years
NMOG = 0.055
CO = 2.1
NOx = 0.3
PM = 0.04
HCHO = 0.011
A Tier 2 LEV falls between the current standards for LEV and ULEV. The biggest change in the standards is that larger vehicles must meet the same criteria as smaller passenger cars. Note that LEV-2 standards are lower than both the LEV and ULEV standards from Tier 1, but only in the categories of NOx and PM. Otherwise they are pretty much the same as the current LEV.
LEV 50,000 miles 5 years
NMOG = 0.075
CO = 3.4
NOx = 0.05
PM = -
HCHO = 0.015
LEV 120,000 miles 11 years
NMOG = 0.090
CO = 4.2
NOx = 0.07
PM = 0.01
HCHO = 0.018
If you're wondering how I got to be such an emissions egghead, try this link.
The Toyota was the winner for me until test drive time - the vehicle spun its front wheel drive wheels in the dealers lot on slight icy section. Anyone have any info. on the open section in the wheel wheels on CRV?
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/suv-02.htm
The new model is a giant leap over the previous generation, which was actually in the bottom tier of its peer group:
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/suv-01.htm
I've read that the old engine was a derivative of the defunct Integra's, and if you wander over to the 2001 cars section, you'll see similar emissions numbers for the 'Teg.
tidester
Host
SUVs
Given this information, I'm going to give the CR-V a much closer look. In the past I've felt a little guilty about considering an SUV because of the pollution and bad mileage. I'm somewhat relieved. Besides, the CR-V (on paper, at least) gets better mileage than my 12 year old 4 cylinder Accord.
I would seriously consider it but won't pay MSRP. Hopefully my 12 year old Honda will keep going for the next year (knock on wood). If anyone knows a dealer in the Chicago area I should check out let me know, otherwise it will be next spring or summer when I will seriously look.
I too have a concern about the hole in the wheel wells. The redesigned suspension seems to require it, as parts of it stick out past the engine compartment into the wheel wells. It seems hard to imagine that the Honda engineers didn't think this through, but my gut feel is that this may be a problem. I noticed, however, that the redesigned Civic has the same "feature", and it has been around for 2 years so far. Has anybody heard of this being a problem for the Civics? I will snoop around the Civic boards to see if it is mentioned, and will report back anything I find out.
I was just noting that the Civic got an "average" rating, after years and years of consistenly above average numbers, including for first-year cars.
Hey, that's still average, nothing bad.
-juice
I have concerns about comparisons between two cars if one is the first MY of a design and the other is a the last MY of the previous design. Obviously, the manufacturer has had time to identify and work out whatever kinks they might find. That's if we are comparing car to car. Making a blanket statement about the designs would be premature. Not statistically wrong, but not a true measure of each design.
However, if we are comparing some of the other numbers that CR reports on, we can end up with a different kind of skewed statistic. CR often publishes a percentage for each vehicle, based on the industry average. But, since the industry average is constantly changing, it would be hard to compare the percentage for today's first MY Civic against the pecentage for last gen's first MY.
The Outback dipped down to "average" for the first year, but has since recovered, so it's likely the Civic could, too.
-juice
did you upgrade the wheels to aftermarket as well?
how are they in terms of looks, noise, roadholding etc. If you are able to post some pix, i'd be interested in how they look (ie do they fill out the wheel wells any better?)
Thanks.
215/60R16 is the closest to your stock diameter, but I wanted a wider tire so I went with 225s (CR-V should have enough clearance for this). It's wider and a bit taller, plus there is less sidewall deflection so effectively I ended up with more ground clearance.
My aftermarket wheels were offset so that each wheel lies 15mm farther outward, effectively giving me a 30mm wider track. Handling was greatly improved, mostly due to the better tire, and the wider track offsets the extra height in terms of handling balance.
Strongly recommended, and yes they visually fill up the wheel wells far better than the stock wheels did.
-juice
A bad sign? I dunno.
-juice
You could also 215/65/15 on the stock wheels and get a wider than stock tire with the same (very close) diameter. JM2cents
including front mud guards and the security system. I think i got a good deal.
Without options it waould have been 22250 or 500 under MSRP.
What is invoice anyone. i thought i read 21K somewhere.
The Yokohamas that I mounted are light years ahead in every aspect (wet & dry performance, i.e.) than the Bridgestones that were standard on the EX. The ride is quieter, softer, and the feel through the steering wheel is much more precise. The OE tires felt like they were rolling under during sharper turns, and the new tires feel like the CRV is on rails. They don't fill out the wheel wells any more than the OE tires did because the overall height is about the same. They do appear substantially WIDER though. The main problem with fitting a larger tire on the standard EX wheel is that it is only 6" wide. If it were 6.5" wide, I could have fit many more sizes of tire. I did not change the wheel to a larger size because of potential speedometer and warranty problems. I don't have any photos yet but I might in the future.
$20,370.00 + 440 transportation = $20,810.00.
you can look it up on this web site
http://199.105.105.110/carsearch.asp?RecordCnt=15&NumberRecords=27&VehicleType=CRV