Scname - There have been some reports of problems after poor break in. Suposedly, the engine is "sensitive". Take the issues with the RSX with a grain of salt. After all, it's a high performance version of a smaller, high revving, and very different block. But, as stated before, I figure it's better to be safe...
Jmurman, Honda upped daily production to 19000 at Sayama, production at Swindon is 100000 a year(already started this month). Thats 328,000 CRVs a year. Over half will come to the states.
Varmit , just what I need. In retrospect, I'm glad I didn't take the demo with 64 miles because I know someone who test drove it and floored the gas pedal on the freeway;.) Hopefully its just some S-type owners who couldn't resist the temptation of 7900 rpm. I did read somewhere (Honda Tuning fall 01 ?) the new engine has the thinnest piston ring the author has ever seeing.
I'm surprised people are still paying near MSRP for this car. I'd like to offer a little advice.
start with a high volume dealer in your town. Go ask for a test drive, tell the saleman you don't plan to buy for two month. Drive by Toyota dealer and remark how powerful, quiet , soft, upscale the Highlander is. Let the salesman know you know how many CRVs Honda will produce next year. Mention the name of a competing Honda dealer. And tell the salesman you will buy from whoever come up with $500 over invoice deal first.
My salesman insisted newV will not be discounted for a month. He called me in 4 days.
Tmanmiata, I would only buy factory warranty. It includes towing, rental. Aftermarket warrantees companies just want to collect premium and pay themselves fat saleries. They will go out of business when your car is 7 years old and needing repairs. I've researched the insurance industry for my stock investment, lots of fly by niters. My house came with a 10 year extended warranty, guess what, company went out of biz in 6 years, when claims started coming in.
I was wondering what you folks out there have been seeing for prices on used CR-Vs from 1998-2000. I found a 2000 LX with 36,100 miles for 16,508 and I was wondering if that's a good deal. Edmunds' TMV price has it almost 1500 cheaper. I live in Kansas so honda prices are hard to determine.
Don't worry about being in Kansas; the TMV calculations ask for your ZIP code to make regional adjustments. In my opinion, that's not a bad price for a 2000 4WD LX with automatic transmission. In that region I would not expect 2WD models to retain their resale value as well.
I got this figure by using CRV 01 percent of mark-up and applying it to the 02 CRV list Price. I was of by $7.00 when I compared it to Bouch Honda Norwood, MA web site that list deal's cost as $20,370.00.
$22,300.00 x 91.37819 = $20,377.00 + Destination and Handling add $440 = $20,817.00
Maybe the $229.00 difference is something they add locally where you received your information?
I feel my invoice is 100% correct and a good tool to use against the MSRP Dealer's around this country.
The test's flaw IMHO was that the vehicles all had different stock tires. I can personally attest that the Firestones on the Escape are terrible in many snow conditions. When I replaced them with winter tires, traction and drivability improved 1000%, but it still was no Subaru.
Remember, AWD does not help you stop. You still have to be extra careful in the winter.
As well, the CRV's RT4WD is "reactive" and olny kicks in when the front tires start to spin. This helps for climbing hills and going through deep snow. It does not provide for the same level of stability on slippery roads like an Audi, Subaru, MDX etc do.
The MDX actullay has an excellent system that is far more sophisticated than the CRV's. It also costs a bunch more $$$.
Sorry Canadatwo, but I have to disagree. The C&D comparo was not a test of the AWD systems, it was a test of the entire vehicle's ability. The tires are part of the package.
Products should be tested in stock configuration, period; to do otherwise would be misleading to consumers. C&D did the right thing by testing the Escape with the stock tires and writing that the car would have performed better with more appropriate rubber. For the same reason, I don't want to see them track testing these cars with racing slicks, either. (OK, well maybe just for fun after the stock testing! )
Heard from dealer in Okla. yesterday. Our '02 V is on it's way and should arrive within 10-15 days. Unfortunately, salesman called the husband instead of me, who has done all the work with regard to researching and purchasing the V. Husband was busy at the time and didn't get much info,. so I don't know the specifics of where the car is shipping from or what-- I'm thinking maybe 10-15 days from California. I'll let you all know the outcome. Yes, anticipation is a good thing . . .but my heart aches for this jewel!
Now now Damsel2... Don't you know that it's a hardened fact that men know more about cars then women. I'm almost sure there's a chapter about it in The Guy's Handbook For A More Macho Lifesyle. Of course the salesman called him first. Don't worry. Just make sure you get to drive it first!
Slugline - You're forgetting the fact that C&D did not install the same superchargers when they ran their acceleration tests. What were they thinking?
I just ordered my 02 CR-V today (blue, automatic). Tried to get a good deal, spoke to about 10 dealerships, but up here (NY/NJ metro area) barely any deals to be had right now. I got $300 off sticker plus a very good financing rate (which saved me a couple more hundred). Business manager didn't try to sell me any fluff (under car coating etc.) which was a nice surprise. Car is due in December. I'm patiently waiting. Thanks for all the input from everyone's post. It was very helpful.
Sure it was flawed. Most of the vehicles tested have come with several different stock tires over the last couple years. So the vehicles were tested with tires that happened to be on them by random chance at ONE POINT in time. Hardly a scientific test.
The problem is that whenever people use that article to support how good or bad a certain SUV does in the snow, they usually don't qualify it by saying that the vehicles were all tested with a random mix of tires that are probably different than what is available on the vehicles for sale at your dealer now.
The test as done does not even come close to telling us which vehicle performs best in the snow and ice. Put a set of Michelin Alpins on all of the test vehicles. Then do the test. Those are the results that would mean a little something for the person wanting to know which vehicle performs best in the snow. I was pointing out how MUCH of a difference a change in tires could make.
As well, the manufacturers all make a compromise selection on tires hoping to meet the needs on the "average" North American consumer while saving as much money as possible. I am not the average North American consumer. I live in the cold wintery north. I will put real winter tires on any vehicle I drive in the winter. I want to know which 4x4 system performs best (it sure aint the Escape, CRV or Rav-4) in the snow with real winter tires on it. Not which vehicle happened to perform best in the snow in Nov 2000 with some random compromised all-season el-cheapo tire that is different and somewhat worse for snow use than the other tires that are not available anymore anyway.
Honda Canada finally updated their website with info on the 2002 CR-V......kinda sparse on pix yet but some pretty detailed technical info that I hadn't read elswhere.
I'm kinda warming to the new CR-V now.....like most new Honda's, the styling doesn't knock you out right away but takes awhile to grow on you. I think I even prefer the black bumpers over the painted ones now......and they sure are more practical. Initial reports on gas mileage are very encouraging....some folks already averaging 30mpg(US)in mostly highway driving which is over 37 mpg (Imperial Gal). For me, the Honda four seems to have the best combination of power and economy out there....interesting to note that the less powerful Saturn four with CVT and electronic power steering still can't match Honda's mileage numbers. While offering less security than Subaru's AWD, the CR-V's Realtime seems to be a notch above Saturn's, if initial reports are any indication.
Still not wild about the tailgate but think I can live with it. Would've been even better if they'd made the left side of the flip-glass extend even lower (much like the new Explorer) so loading grocery bags etc would've been even easier. Anyway, not in a hurry to buy.....probably will wait until spring.....hopefully some deals available by then.
Candatwo - The test might be more meaningful to you because you change your tires. Putting snow tires on each vehicle would have made the test meaningless for me because I do not need snow tires, although we do get our share of here in New England. The majority of the owners out there do not change their tires. As for "random" tires, Ford is the only one that I know of who has changed the treads they use.
Artdecho - Wow, that is a pretty comprehensive release. They go into even more detail than the Wieck Media site. Nice find.
Seats are very comfortable, softer than before, could be wider. The lounge chair feature is good, comfortable enough to sleep in. Moonroof is quiet and rattle free up to 80 mph. Very little wind noise open or tilted. Loud only if side window also open. Honda did a good job with aerodynamics, no wind noise from the body. Very noisy car from those tires and Houston's wavy cement freeways. Very quiet at idle and on new/smooth tar cover street. Very very bumpy ride except on smooth surface. Engine runs sub 3000 rpm at 80, wasn't able to nail down exact number due to traffic. Artdecho is correct, Honda design grows on you. The black bumper looks good. I will not paint those bumpers now. Getting a burnt rubber smell, hope its just the new car thing not the Tribute's leaky manifold type issue. NewV also got plastic intake manifold for all you who don't know. NewV is nimble,handles like a car, can turn corner with confidence. Turning diameter small enough for U turns. Engine quiet and powerful. Wheel well moldings are supposed to protect fender metal. NewV's are 2 milimeter inside the fender. Useless.
Drove over 2 hours, didn't get a single glance from passing motorist.
I would have to semi-agree with you that the test is meaningful for those that do not change their tires. It is only meaningful if all of the SUV's that you are considering have the same tires on them in your dealer's lot as they had in the test. So you can throw out the results of the Escape & CRV for sure and probably several others as well. Then it is only meaningful for the period of time you actually have 75%+ tread depth remaining on the stock tires for driving in the snow. Snow/ice handling/traction characteristics can change a lot as the tire wears, especially for an all-season tire. Then of course once people replace their stock tires after they wear out, they seldom replace them with the same tire. So, let's say that the average tire lasts 35,000 miles and the average person drives 15,000 miles a year, at best the test may be semi-accurate for ONE winter given all of the other qualifications. Hardly concrete & scientific.
Perhaps they should do the test with every SUV having the exact same all-season tire (choose the most popular after-market tire) as well for those who would ignore a test done with snow tires becuase they run all-seasons year round.
OK, so can we safely conclude that, as a general rule, more dollars (Acura, Mercedes, Volvo) buy better performance???? Doesn't surprise me. . . . Maybe we can agree that it would be best if the magazine conducted two sets of tests -- one with stock tires, and one with identical tires, with both sets of tests clearly identified. This way consumers are shown the honest performance of the vehicles straight off the dealer lots . . . and educated on the benefits of snow tires. One more point about fair testing: If you insist on conducting tests only with equal tires, there is reduced incentive for automakers to put on quality rubber at the factory, because that decision won't show up at the test track. If an automaker decides to source below-average tires for their vehicles, then their test results deserve to suffer accordingly. BTW canadatwo, would you advocate using springs and lift kits to level the playing field, too? After all, ground clearance can come in handy too. . . .
More dollars - you neglected to mention Subaru for some reason. Not a lot more dollars and a far superior AWD system for snowy/icy roads. In fact, CRV & Vue and several other are not true AWD.
Straight off the dealer lots - yes, again IF and a BIG IF the ALL of the vehicles have the exact same tires as they did in the test. Again, they most likely do NOT. Therefore the test results are not at all applicable to the real world.
Factory tires - again, the tires chosen are for the average North American road condition (dry and wet roads, not snowy). The tires supplied will change over the life of the vehicle's availability. There is HUGE, HUGE, HUGE difference in tractionability on snow and ice, not so much for dry roads. In fact, a much more expensive $125 all-season tire that has superior ride, dry/wet traction & durability characteristics can be greatly inferior in the snow to a $60 Wal-Mart all-season tire. Now which would you rather have on your $25,000 SUV? Year round? Summer? Winter?
The talk of adding springs, lift kits, and superchargers etc is just silly. Tires have way, way way way more to do with snow traction than any of the above, even more so than AWD or lack thereof. Again, tire cost is not in any way correlated to snow/ice traction.
In fact, a 2WD Passat with studded Nokian Hakka-1's or Blizzaks will have far superior traction in snow and ice than a CRV/Escape/Vue with stock tires. The benefits of 4WD and AWD can be completely negated for snow travel if the tire mounted on the vehicle has poor snow/ice traction qualities, even if it is the most expensive all-season tire available.
I do think that we can agree that the C&D test should carry a BIG qualification that the snow traction results are only relevant to the extent that the vehicles have the exact same tires on them that they did in the test.
Maybe they are refering to the White Snow & 11 Dwarfs article in March 2001. Just search for white snow you'll find it.
I found out why my newV has so much road noise and rides so bumpy. Tire pressure is 35 psi when Honda recommends 26 psi unless you drive 100 mph then you shoud pump it up to 35. I've read others post about high inflation on new cars but didn't think it will happen to me. Trusted my dealer too much. I dropped pressure down to 30 to see if I'm comfortable here before I lower it again.
Slugline, it'd be sometime before I take my newV on salty beaches. Its raining today, guess what I'm driving.
Yeah, I understand . . . it was a while before the "pristine period" passed for me too. I think I can guess what you've been taking through the rain we've been having this weekend. I'm still impressed by the performance of my CR-V the morning T.S. Allison deluged Sugar Land. I'm still looking to spot my first '02 CR-V outside a dealership -- maybe yours will be the first???
Yesterday I went nosing around new car dealer lots and saw a new CR-V that the dealer managed to "upgrade" from $22,700 sticker to $25,500. Among things added were running boards, gold badge kit and side cladding. But the last item on the list is unknown to me-a $698 Total Protection Package A. Just what is it? Undercoating or rustproofing? Thanks.
canadatwo: "Subaru, Audi, MDX, Mercedes, Volvo are better performers than the RAV-4." I don't know what you are basing this on, your statement that Subaru's system out-performs the RAV4. Apparently not the C&D comparo. Other?
Given all the noise reduction technology that went into the new CR-V, as well as the stiffer body structure, etc, I was a little surprised at the road noise/bumpy ride you described. Nice to know that tire pressure was probably the culprit. Let us know if there is any improvement at lower pressures.
Quotes from the article: "You'd want snow tires for those conditions, on all of these vehicles." On the Escape: "We think the standard tires simply weren't up to the job. Fortunately, they're easy to replace"
Again, tires, tires, tires.
The Rav-4 was best at climbing a snowy hill in the shootout. No doubt it is a capable performer, much more so than the CRV, Escape & VUE. C&D did not talk about lateral traction and handling through all types of snow & ice covered roads. This is where the Subaru shines. Get the Limited Slip Diff on a Forester, decent winter tires and you will have unbeatable confidence for winter driving conditions.
Again, the problem with the shootout is that tires are a MAJOR factor (as admitted by C&D) for snow traction. They did not even tell you which tires each SUV had (except for the Escape/Tribute), so you can not use the test results to project real world performance. Heck, it was not even a scientific test to start with.
Canadatwo - No one is going to argue that snow tires are not a major factor in traction. But the point is that you cannot change stock configurations for individual tests. If you start doing that with snow tires where do you stop? Springs and shocks for handling tests? A good set of snow tires costs as much as the leather seats I put in my CR-V. Does that mean that all comfort ratings for the CR-V are null and void? What if I upgraded the brakes? Should the NHTSA install aftermarket airbags on all vehciles?
And, yes, they did talk about overall traction in that article. If memory serves, their critique of the Subaru you've mentioned showed that it dragged it's belly in deep snow. They mentioned that this forced them to drive in the ruts of other vehicles. I have experience with this, and it is a handling problem. This was not a problem with the other vehicles; notably the RAV4 which has about the same clearance to the differential (and also comes with an LSD option?).
Regardless, I mentioned the article because it gives a decent impression of how the CR-V handles itself in snow. No comparison to the other vehicles in the test was intended or implied.
varmit - sure you can change tires for a test in the snow. C&D even admits that snow tires should be used. Again, the results are only indicitive if you get the exact same tires as they had in the test, and only for the first 25% of the life of the tire. So maybe one winter?
In fact, an entry trim level 4WD model of the CRV or Escape (LX or XLS) can perform substantially better in the snow and ice than the higher level model because it may have a narrower tire or a tread design that is more suited for the snow. Now, who is going to buy the entry level model because it performs better in snow and ice based on that? No one! Anybody would quickly see it is purely a tire issue and move on.
And again, C&D did not tell us what exact tire model was on ALL of the SUV's so the snow performance results are almost useless in relating it to real world. There have been several complaints on the Forester board about the snow performance of *some* of the stock tires depending on which one you got by some random chance. The testers comments on the Forester may or may not apply to your stock tired Forester.
As far as the Subaru having to drive through the ruts to get by, C&D said something similar about the CRV:
"It (CRV) was stable through the deep tracks of others"
Sounds like it maybe it had to go through the ruts as well? It definitely can be interpeted that way.
They also said about the CRV: "Full power in the slippery sections was enough to break traction, causing the engine to soar in revs, yet we had good directional control"
Does not sound what I would want to happen (breaking traction) to my 4WD vehicle in the snow. Maybe because the tires that happened to be on the test CRV have very poor snow traction (even if they are the most expensive tires in the test which we don't know because they did not tell us)? Or does the CRV just have a poor 4WD system? The test does not conclude anything!
Someone recently posted on these boards how the Forester was noticeably superior to the new CRV in snow & ice based on his actual test drives. Was it a tire issue?
As far as not using the test as a comparison, someone mentioned that the CRV scored 3rd or 5th in a snow test. That is a implying a comparison.
Of course the overall rankings had ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with how the vehicles handle in the snow as C&D rated the WORST performing vehicles in the snow (Escape/Trib) BEST (#1) in the comparison. Huh?
So, the testers concluded that the snow traction tests are pretty much USELESS in the overall scheme of things due to the tire issue. I agree with them on that point (not on the rankings though).
As far as a good set of snow tires costing you what leather costs, I beg to differ. A good set of winter tires will cost you $400. You use the stock all-season tires Spring to Fall, the snow tires in winter only. This enables you to rotate your tires which will lengthen their life. You will also have MUCH better snow traction in your second winter as you are not driving on worn all-seasons. Your overall cost increase is only the interest cost on the $400, about $32 a year.
Where the REAL savings are the MUCH improved traction and safety you will have in winter. What cost savings do you put on that?
Basically, if the test is to determine what car drives best straight off the dealer lot, then the test is fine. If the test is to determine the actual best handling car in the snow, then the test is flawed as tires might represent 80% of the handling equation.
Furthermore, I read a test before in some magazine in which they compared an Mercede E class 2WD and 4WD and an Audi A6 2WD and AWD. The results were quite interesting. Obviously, with stock tires, the AWD beat the 2WD hands down. However, when they mounted actual snow tires on the car, the only advantage of having AWD was climbing a hill (AWD allows you to climb steeper snowy hills obviously). Otherwise, 2WD and 4WD handled just about the same in turns (same lateral Gs), and the 2WD braked better due to their lower weight (less transmission weight). The results even showed that a 2WD with snow tires handled better than a AWD with regular tires.
Of course, these 2 cars are high end $40-50K plus cars, but the basic lesson is that tires are the most important part in snowy conditions.
Regarding what type of transmission would work well in the snow, my understanding is that a full time AWD a la RAV4 or Subaru should be optimum as it continuously delivers the torque where needed.
That being said, you have to put that in the context of where you live. If you're like me, living in CA, and going to Tahoe once in a while in the winter, the stock tires are probably just fine. My experience with Caltrans is that they close the roads way before your car reaches its traction limits, so your below average all season tires and semi AWD transmission will do just fine when crawling along at 20 mph along with everybody else.
If you live in the great white north, then no matter what you buy, you'd better have a set of winter tires.
I might be a little foolhardy about this but I haven't used snow tires for about 5 years. I just came back from Whistler this past weekend with the V on the half-worn Dueler H/T all-seasons. We ran into a semi-blizzard on the way up and the V didn't miss a step!
C&D did not state that these cars should be tested with snow tires, they state that you should use snow tires if you driving in the same conditions as the vehicles were tested. Once again, absolutely no one is arguing against that and you are repeating yourself.
The remarks regarding ruts point out that the CR-V handled well despite being in ruts. They report, "It was stable". They obviously felt that the Forester was not (IOW, steering was at the mercy of which way the ruts go).
As for full power breaking traction.... Duh! I should hope that full power would break traction even on a dry surface! Despite the fact that the engine revved high into the rpm band, the car gripped and handled well to get out the situation. IOW, RT4WD worked well.
My leather cost me $695 installed and will last the life of the car (8-10 years). With your figures, snow tires would cost $400 per set and would need to be replaced twice during the life of the car. Probably 3 times here, because we get intermittent snow fall and snow tires wear out faster. Now add on the cost of mounting the tires on existing rims or purchasing a second set.
TOTAL PROTECTION PACKAGE A FOR $689.00 IS A TOTAL RIP OFF OF THE LOYAL HONDA CUSTOMERS. IT'S HAS ZERO VALUE. WHEN THE DEALER GETS SOMEONE TO PAY FOR IT, HE/SHE TAKES OUT IS WHOLE SALE STAFF TO LUNCH ON IT. DO NOT BUY @ ANY DEALER THAT ADDS ON TO THE STICKER. IF THEY TAKE OFF $1500.00 OFF LIST THEY ARE STILL MAKING MONEY.
"We found the CR-V to be sure-footed, even in the deepest snow. It was stable through the deep tracks of others. Full power in the slippery sections was enough to break traction, causing the engine to soar in revs, yet we had good directional control. The tail never tried to pass the front." - C&D
Burnout? 40 mph? Where are you reading this stuff?
I've done a lot of research and now I'm ready to test drive. If I buy a mini suv it seems like these two are the best choices.I live in SW Colorado so I drive in snow and up steep hills. The vehical has to be able to do well under these conditions including driving on dirt roads but not true off roading. I want good cargo space for camping gear.I don't carry passengers in back, just gear. I've read that the subaru has a better AWD system but less clearance. I'll keep this vehicle for several years. So, what are the relative merits of these two cars?
I'm a Forester man. I think it has the better 4WD system, and has more features that I like.
The Forester's AWD is working for you all the time, unlike the Real-Time 4WD found on the CRV.
The Forester 5-speed's normal front-to-rear power split is 50/50. With the automatic it's normally 90/10. With either system power can be transferred forward or back. So it's possible to get a 10/90 power split if the system deems it necessary. In addition, with the Forester S and S Premium, you get a limited slip rear deferential, which transfers power left or right, as needed.
With the CRV, it's 100% FWD until slippage is detected, then power is sent to the rear wheels.
As far as features are concerned: if you opt for the Forester S or S Premium, you get heated seats, heated outside mirrors, and an electronic windshield deicer in addition to the normal front defroster.
The CRV has about .5" more ground clearance and better angles of approach and departure.
With the new '02 CRV, the power is now very close to that of the Forester, but the Forester is the better handler. It has a lower center of gravity, mainly due to the boxer engine layout.
The CRV is roomier, and both cars should be extremely reliable.
Comments
uthinx "Acura RSX (Hatchbacks & Coupes)" Nov 28, 2001 6:36pm
Jmurman - Are you talking world-wide or for US distribution?
Jerry
Varmit , just what I need. In retrospect, I'm glad I didn't take the demo with 64 miles because I know someone who test drove it and floored the gas pedal on the freeway;.) Hopefully its just some S-type owners who couldn't resist the temptation of 7900 rpm. I did read somewhere (Honda Tuning fall 01 ?) the new engine has the thinnest piston ring the author has ever seeing.
I'm surprised people are still paying near MSRP for this car. I'd like to offer a little advice.
start with a high volume dealer in your town. Go ask for a test drive, tell the saleman you don't plan to buy for two month. Drive by Toyota dealer and remark how powerful, quiet , soft, upscale the Highlander is. Let the salesman know you know how many CRVs Honda will produce next year. Mention the name of a competing Honda dealer. And tell the salesman you will buy from whoever come up with $500 over invoice deal first.
My salesman insisted newV will not be discounted for a month. He called me in 4 days.
Tmanmiata, I would only buy factory warranty. It includes towing, rental. Aftermarket warrantees companies just want to collect premium and pay themselves fat saleries. They will go out of business when your car is 7 years old and needing repairs. I've researched the insurance industry for my stock investment, lots of fly by niters. My house came with a 10 year extended warranty, guess what, company went out of biz in 6 years, when claims started coming in.
I was wondering what you folks out there have been seeing for prices on used CR-Vs from 1998-2000. I found a 2000 LX with 36,100 miles for 16,508 and I was wondering if that's a good deal. Edmunds' TMV price has it almost 1500 cheaper. I live in Kansas so honda prices are hard to determine.
Thanks,
Karl
I got this figure by using CRV 01 percent of mark-up and applying it to the 02 CRV list Price. I was of by $7.00 when I compared it to Bouch Honda Norwood, MA web site that list deal's cost as $20,370.00.
$22,300.00 x 91.37819 = $20,377.00 + Destination and Handling add $440 = $20,817.00
Maybe the $229.00 difference is something they add locally where you received your information?
I feel my invoice is 100% correct and a good tool to use against the MSRP Dealer's around this country.
scmname, We have been told by Honda that the US will have 125,000 CR-V's
Jerry
Why would they list a lower invoice on their web site with a lower number? Go on their web site, I didn't make that number up!
http://199.105.105.110/carsearch.asp?VehicleType=CRV
Did Honda lower your holdback percentage on the 02 CRV's.
In your valued opinion, when will I be able to purchase a 02 CRV EX Automatic @ $250.00 over whatever invoice we used?
Thanks
Remember, AWD does not help you stop. You still have to be extra careful in the winter.
As well, the CRV's RT4WD is "reactive" and olny kicks in when the front tires start to spin. This helps for climbing hills and going through deep snow. It does not provide for the same level of stability on slippery roads like an Audi, Subaru, MDX etc do.
The MDX actullay has an excellent system that is far more sophisticated than the CRV's. It also costs a bunch more $$$.
have fun
Slugline - You're forgetting the fact that C&D did not install the same superchargers when they ran their acceleration tests. What were they thinking?
Thanks for all the input from everyone's post. It was very helpful.
The problem is that whenever people use that article to support how good or bad a certain SUV does in the snow, they usually don't qualify it by saying that the vehicles were all tested with a random mix of tires that are probably different than what is available on the vehicles for sale at your dealer now.
The test as done does not even come close to telling us which vehicle performs best in the snow and ice. Put a set of Michelin Alpins on all of the test vehicles. Then do the test. Those are the results that would mean a little something for the person wanting to know which vehicle performs best in the snow. I was pointing out how MUCH of a difference a change in tires could make.
As well, the manufacturers all make a compromise selection on tires hoping to meet the needs on the "average" North American consumer while saving as much money as possible. I am not the average North American consumer. I live in the cold wintery north. I will put real winter tires on any vehicle I drive in the winter. I want to know which 4x4 system performs best (it sure aint the Escape, CRV or Rav-4) in the snow with real winter tires on it. Not which vehicle happened to perform best in the snow in Nov 2000 with some random compromised all-season el-cheapo tire that is different and somewhat worse for snow use than the other tires that are not available anymore anyway.
Varmit....you might want to check this out:
http://english.honda.ca/models/cr-v_benefits_description.asp#ext
I'm kinda warming to the new CR-V now.....like most new Honda's, the styling doesn't knock you out right away but takes awhile to grow on you. I think I even prefer the black bumpers over the painted ones now......and they sure are more practical. Initial reports on gas mileage are very encouraging....some folks already averaging 30mpg(US)in mostly highway driving which is over 37 mpg (Imperial Gal). For me, the Honda four seems to have the best combination of power and economy out there....interesting to note that the less powerful Saturn four with CVT and electronic power steering still can't match Honda's mileage numbers. While offering less security than Subaru's AWD, the CR-V's Realtime seems to be a notch above Saturn's, if initial reports are any indication.
Still not wild about the tailgate but think I can live with it. Would've been even better if they'd made the left side of the flip-glass extend even lower (much like the new Explorer) so loading grocery bags etc would've been even easier. Anyway, not in a hurry to buy.....probably will wait until spring.....hopefully some deals available by then.
Artdecho - Wow, that is a pretty comprehensive release. They go into even more detail than the Wieck Media site. Nice find.
2002 Honda CR-V LX AWD 4dr SUV (2.4L 4cyl 4A)
MSRP Invoice Base Price $20,000
Destination Charge 440
Total $20,440
Start from Dealer's cost and go up when making your deal:
Invoice $18,275.00
Destination
Charge 440.00
Total $18,715.00
Try to pay $250.00 over invoice!
Seats are very comfortable, softer than before, could be wider.
The lounge chair feature is good, comfortable enough to sleep in.
Moonroof is quiet and rattle free up to 80 mph. Very little wind noise open or tilted. Loud only if side window also open.
Honda did a good job with aerodynamics, no wind noise from the body.
Very noisy car from those tires and Houston's wavy cement freeways.
Very quiet at idle and on new/smooth tar cover street.
Very very bumpy ride except on smooth surface.
Engine runs sub 3000 rpm at 80, wasn't able to nail down exact number due to traffic.
Artdecho is correct, Honda design grows on you. The black bumper looks good. I will not paint those bumpers now.
Getting a burnt rubber smell, hope its just the new car thing not the Tribute's leaky manifold type issue. NewV also got plastic intake manifold for all you who don't know.
NewV is nimble,handles like a car, can turn corner with confidence.
Turning diameter small enough for U turns.
Engine quiet and powerful.
Wheel well moldings are supposed to protect fender metal. NewV's are 2 milimeter inside the fender. Useless.
Drove over 2 hours, didn't get a single glance from passing motorist.
What have you got against the RAV4 all-wheel drive system (full-time 50/50 split front/rear)?
The Escape, CRV and VUE are at the bottom. RAV-4 is in the middle.
It is only meaningful if all of the SUV's that you are considering have the same tires on them in your dealer's lot as they had in the test. So you can throw out the results of the Escape & CRV for sure and probably several others as well.
Then it is only meaningful for the period of time you actually have 75%+ tread depth remaining on the stock tires for driving in the snow. Snow/ice handling/traction characteristics can change a lot as the tire wears, especially for an all-season tire. Then of course once people replace their stock tires after they wear out, they seldom replace them with the same tire.
So, let's say that the average tire lasts 35,000 miles and the average person drives 15,000 miles a year, at best the test may be semi-accurate for ONE winter given all of the other qualifications.
Hardly concrete & scientific.
Perhaps they should do the test with every SUV having the exact same all-season tire (choose the most popular after-market tire) as well for those who would ignore a test done with snow tires becuase they run all-seasons year round.
One more point about fair testing: If you insist on conducting tests only with equal tires, there is reduced incentive for automakers to put on quality rubber at the factory, because that decision won't show up at the test track. If an automaker decides to source below-average tires for their vehicles, then their test results deserve to suffer accordingly.
BTW canadatwo, would you advocate using springs and lift kits to level the playing field, too? After all, ground clearance can come in handy too. . . .
http://www.ptcruiserusa.com/hondasuv/crvix/clubs/galveston_oct01/club_galveston_oct01.htm
Straight off the dealer lots - yes, again IF and a BIG IF the ALL of the vehicles have the exact same tires as they did in the test. Again, they most likely do NOT. Therefore the test results are not at all applicable to the real world.
Factory tires - again, the tires chosen are for the average North American road condition (dry and wet roads, not snowy). The tires supplied will change over the life of the vehicle's availability. There is HUGE, HUGE, HUGE difference in tractionability on snow and ice, not so much for dry roads. In fact, a much more expensive $125 all-season tire that has superior ride, dry/wet traction & durability characteristics can be greatly inferior in the snow to a $60 Wal-Mart all-season tire. Now which would you rather have on your $25,000 SUV? Year round? Summer? Winter?
The talk of adding springs, lift kits, and superchargers etc is just silly. Tires have way, way way way more to do with snow traction than any of the above, even more so than AWD or lack thereof. Again, tire cost is not in any way correlated to snow/ice traction.
In fact, a 2WD Passat with studded Nokian Hakka-1's or Blizzaks will have far superior traction in snow and ice than a CRV/Escape/Vue with stock tires. The benefits of 4WD and AWD can be completely negated for snow travel if the tire mounted on the vehicle has poor snow/ice traction qualities, even if it is the most expensive all-season tire available.
I do think that we can agree that the C&D test should carry a BIG qualification that the snow traction results are only relevant to the extent that the vehicles have the exact same tires on them that they did in the test.
Can someone provide me with a link?
Thanks.
I found out why my newV has so much road noise and rides so bumpy. Tire pressure is 35 psi when Honda recommends 26 psi unless you drive 100 mph then you shoud pump it up to 35. I've read others post about high inflation on new cars but didn't think it will happen to me. Trusted my dealer too much. I dropped pressure down to 30 to see if I'm comfortable here before I lower it again.
Slugline, it'd be sometime before I take my newV on salty beaches. Its raining today, guess what I'm driving.
White Snow and the 11 Dwarfs
canadatwo: "Subaru, Audi, MDX, Mercedes, Volvo are better performers than the RAV-4."
I don't know what you are basing this on, your statement that Subaru's system out-performs the RAV4. Apparently not the C&D comparo. Other?
Let us know if there is any improvement at lower pressures.
"You'd want snow tires for those conditions, on all of these vehicles."
On the Escape:
"We think the standard tires simply weren't up to the job. Fortunately, they're easy to replace"
Again, tires, tires, tires.
The Rav-4 was best at climbing a snowy hill in the shootout. No doubt it is a capable performer, much more so than the CRV, Escape & VUE.
C&D did not talk about lateral traction and handling through all types of snow & ice covered roads. This is where the Subaru shines. Get the Limited Slip Diff on a Forester, decent winter tires and you will have unbeatable confidence for winter driving conditions.
Again, the problem with the shootout is that tires are a MAJOR factor (as admitted by C&D) for snow traction. They did not even tell you which tires each SUV had (except for the Escape/Tribute), so you can not use the test results to project real world performance. Heck, it was not even a scientific test to start with.
And, yes, they did talk about overall traction in that article. If memory serves, their critique of the Subaru you've mentioned showed that it dragged it's belly in deep snow. They mentioned that this forced them to drive in the ruts of other vehicles. I have experience with this, and it is a handling problem. This was not a problem with the other vehicles; notably the RAV4 which has about the same clearance to the differential (and also comes with an LSD option?).
Regardless, I mentioned the article because it gives a decent impression of how the CR-V handles itself in snow. No comparison to the other vehicles in the test was intended or implied.
In fact, an entry trim level 4WD model of the CRV or Escape (LX or XLS) can perform substantially better in the snow and ice than the higher level model because it may have a narrower tire or a tread design that is more suited for the snow. Now, who is going to buy the entry level model because it performs better in snow and ice based on that? No one! Anybody would quickly see it is purely a tire issue and move on.
And again, C&D did not tell us what exact tire model was on ALL of the SUV's so the snow performance results are almost useless in relating it to real world. There have been several complaints on the Forester board about the snow performance of *some* of the stock tires depending on which one you got by some random chance. The testers comments on the Forester may or may not apply to your stock tired Forester.
As far as the Subaru having to drive through the ruts to get by, C&D said something similar about the CRV:
"It (CRV) was stable through the deep tracks of others"
Sounds like it maybe it had to go through the ruts as well? It definitely can be interpeted that way.
They also said about the CRV:
"Full power in the slippery sections was enough to break traction, causing the engine to soar in revs, yet we had good directional control"
Does not sound what I would want to happen (breaking traction) to my 4WD vehicle in the snow. Maybe because the tires that happened to be on the test CRV have very poor snow traction (even if they are the most expensive tires in the test which we don't know because they did not tell us)? Or does the CRV just have a poor 4WD system? The test does not conclude anything!
Someone recently posted on these boards how the Forester was noticeably superior to the new CRV in snow & ice based on his actual test drives. Was it a tire issue?
As far as not using the test as a comparison, someone mentioned that the CRV scored 3rd or 5th in a snow test. That is a implying a comparison.
Of course the overall rankings had ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with how the vehicles handle in the snow as C&D rated the WORST performing vehicles in the snow (Escape/Trib) BEST (#1) in the comparison. Huh?
So, the testers concluded that the snow traction tests are pretty much USELESS in the overall scheme of things due to the tire issue. I agree with them on that point (not on the rankings though).
As far as a good set of snow tires costing you what leather costs, I beg to differ. A good set of winter tires will cost you $400. You use the stock all-season tires Spring to Fall, the snow tires in winter only. This enables you to rotate your tires which will lengthen their life. You will also have MUCH better snow traction in your second winter as you are not driving on worn all-seasons. Your overall cost increase is only the interest cost on the $400, about $32 a year.
Where the REAL savings are the MUCH improved traction and safety you will have in winter. What cost savings do you put on that?
Basically, if the test is to determine what car drives best straight off the dealer lot, then the test is fine. If the test is to determine the actual best handling car in the snow, then the test is flawed as tires might represent 80% of the handling equation.
Furthermore, I read a test before in some magazine in which they compared an Mercede E class 2WD and 4WD and an Audi A6 2WD and AWD. The results were quite interesting. Obviously, with stock tires, the AWD beat the 2WD hands down. However, when they mounted actual snow tires on the car, the only advantage of having AWD was climbing a hill (AWD allows you to climb steeper snowy hills obviously). Otherwise, 2WD and 4WD handled just about the same in turns (same lateral Gs), and the 2WD braked better due to their lower weight (less transmission weight). The results even showed that a 2WD with snow tires handled better than a AWD with regular tires.
Of course, these 2 cars are high end $40-50K plus cars, but the basic lesson is that tires are the most important part in snowy conditions.
Regarding what type of transmission would work well in the snow, my understanding is that a full time AWD a la RAV4 or Subaru should be optimum as it continuously delivers the torque where needed.
That being said, you have to put that in the context of where you live. If you're like me, living in CA, and going to Tahoe once in a while in the winter, the stock tires are probably just fine. My experience with Caltrans is that they close the roads way before your car reaches its traction limits, so your below average all season tires and semi AWD transmission will do just fine when crawling along at 20 mph along with everybody else.
If you live in the great white north, then no matter what you buy, you'd better have a set of winter tires.
Just my $.02.
The remarks regarding ruts point out that the CR-V handled well despite being in ruts. They report, "It was stable". They obviously felt that the Forester was not (IOW, steering was at the mercy of which way the ruts go).
As for full power breaking traction.... Duh! I should hope that full power would break traction even on a dry surface! Despite the fact that the engine revved high into the rpm band, the car gripped and handled well to get out the situation. IOW, RT4WD worked well.
My leather cost me $695 installed and will last the life of the car (8-10 years). With your figures, snow tires would cost $400 per set and would need to be replaced twice during the life of the car. Probably 3 times here, because we get intermittent snow fall and snow tires wear out faster. Now add on the cost of mounting the tires on existing rims or purchasing a second set.
IS A TOTAL RIP OFF OF THE LOYAL HONDA
CUSTOMERS. IT'S HAS ZERO VALUE. WHEN THE DEALER
GETS SOMEONE TO PAY FOR IT, HE/SHE TAKES OUT IS WHOLE SALE STAFF TO LUNCH ON IT. DO NOT BUY @ ANY DEALER THAT ADDS ON TO THE STICKER. IF THEY TAKE
OFF $1500.00 OFF LIST THEY ARE STILL MAKING MONEY.
I would really, really like to see the 2001 CRV do a 4-wheel (actually 2 - no LSD) burnout and smoke show on warm dry pavement while doing 40 mph. LOL
Burnout? 40 mph? Where are you reading this stuff?
But just for fun...
The Forester's AWD is working for you all the time, unlike the Real-Time 4WD found on the CRV.
The Forester 5-speed's normal front-to-rear power split is 50/50. With the automatic it's normally 90/10. With either system power can be transferred forward or back. So it's possible to get a 10/90 power split if the system deems it necessary. In addition, with the Forester S and S Premium, you get a limited slip rear deferential, which transfers power left or right, as needed.
With the CRV, it's 100% FWD until slippage is detected, then power is sent to the rear wheels.
As far as features are concerned: if you opt for the Forester S or S Premium, you get heated seats, heated outside mirrors, and an electronic windshield deicer in addition to the normal front defroster.
The CRV has about .5" more ground clearance and better angles of approach and departure.
With the new '02 CRV, the power is now very close to that of the Forester, but the Forester is the better handler. It has a lower center of gravity, mainly due to the boxer engine layout.
The CRV is roomier, and both cars should be extremely reliable.
Bob
"I should hope that full power would break traction even on a dry surface"
Even from a standstill, I would really like to see a stock 2001 CRV light 4 of em up!
BTW, neat picture of the modded CRV, is that a 4wd or 2wd setup, hard to tell from the pic?
Bob