2001 - 2006 Honda CR-Vs

canadiancl · December 2001

I thought I had read somewhere (Consumer Guide? Consumer Report?) that the Outback engine is slow to turn over in sub-zero weather. The Forester uses the same (4-cyl) engine as the Outback, right? Has this been a problem for you Forester guys and gals? I figure this may be relevant since piedra said he is in Colorado and will be driving in winter conditions.

rsholland · December 2001

I've yet to drive it in sub-zero weather. We may hit that temperature once or twice a decade.

Any Subie owners from Canada or other snow belts care to respond?

I believe(?) Subaru offers, as an option, an engine block heater for cold climates.

Bob

varmit · December 2001

Canadatwo - My point is that there is a difference between a "burnout" and "breaking traction". And yes, a stock CR-V will leave rubber if you abuse it. I've never done more than chirp the tires, but it's not difficult to do.

Re the pic: That CR-V belongs to a 17 yr old. Most mods are in the suspension and cosmetics. Its a 4WD, but he wants to disable it. Try this link. (I should add that this is not my idea of a smart mod job.)

Piedra - If you're not headed off-road or through unplowed deep snow, then the Forester should do fine. I assume that you're looking at the '02 CR-V, so you've really got as much space as a the Outback. If the Forester is enough, then the CR-V is probably overkill.

thorn · December 2001

Especially that new engine, making the CR-V much faster. Typically though, demand is outstripping supply, so expect to pay list or more. But that will be compensated for by better resale value and the CR-V's enduring excellence.

Honda enjoyed its best November ever  90,153  even though it did not offer 0% financing. That's an 11.5% gain from a year earlier, most of it from the redesigned 2002 CR-V sport-utility vehicle and continuing gains by Odyssey minivan.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2001/12/03/auto-sales.htm

The Forrester is a drug on the market so there is no wait and huge discounts are available. But do you really want to drive KMART?

canadatwo · December 2001

The 2002 CRV is an all new redesign (disapointing IMHO) that people are jumping all over mainly because it is a Honda.

The 2003 Forester will be all new and will atrract more attention than the current one.

thorn · December 2001

People have high expections for Honda, so Honda is more likely to disappoint some.

Subaru doesn't have that burden. They excite by staying in business.

jfavour · December 2001

I don't understand some people's need to rip someone for what they drive or for their enthusiasm for a particular brand of cars. We all have our preferences and history with different makes. Both Subaru and Honda have many merits. It is more fun for me to read this board when people are weighing their good vs. bad points in a positive and fun manner rather than just ripping Subaru or some other brand because of a perceived superiority complex.

I have a Honda and an Acura and will probably always buy Honda products, but I think Subaru makes great cars and has developed a great market for their vehicles. I see plenty of them here in the cold, snowy north and haven't heard of anyone having significant problems with one. I even secretly lust after the WRX (although I think it is somewhat ugly). I wish Honda would make a car like that.

Regarding people buying a CR-V just because it is a Honda. I think Honda has earned that type of loyalty. It seems Subaru has a similar type of loyalty, just a smaller number of owners and vehicles for sale in North America. I am sure some people will buy the new Forester just because it is a Subaru.

suvshopper4 · December 2001

jfavour: I agree. But the ripping goes both ways. And then some.

rsholland · December 2001

ripping another brand with emotion-filled statements, rather than with factual information does a disservice not only to this forum, but also to the poster.

Bob

varmit · December 2001

Ditto. While I am generally a Honda fan, I find myself recommending the Forester as often as the CR-V. Different car for different needs.

hayduke01 · December 2001

Currently I drive a '93 Honda VX; my last vehicle was an '87 Subaru 4x4 GL wagon.

On my Honda the only repair (as opposed to routine maintenance) I've had done was to the latch on the hatchback. A screw broke, causing the portion of the latch that's mounted on the glass to come loose on one side. My mechanic tells me I'll need a new clutch eventually, but not to worry about it until it starts slipping. Currently at 95,000 miles. No matter what my next vehicle turns out to be, I'll keep the Civic.

The Subaru wasn't quite so reliable. The timing belt failed prior to its scheuled replacement. It was a long time ago, but I think it was scheduled for 60,000 miles and failed at around 40,000 miles. Adding to the frustration, it failed about three hours from home, and also three hours from the nearest dealer. Also had ongoing problems with cold starting, but that was probably because it was carbeurated. Required a long warm up inthe cold too, otherwise it would have no power, and would probably stall. I think fuel injection came in '88; in retrospect I should have waited. But for the positives, it had something that none of today's car-based SUVs offer: dual range 4WD. I didn't need the low range very often, but it was there for when I did need it.

The Subaru's long gone, but the Civic has inheritied its jumper cables. Now I only need the jumper cables about once a year, when someone forgets to turn off the lights. (Auto off lights, another Subaru standard feature which would be nice on my Civic).

Bottom line: I'd consider a Subaru, but Honda would have the edge based on my experience with those brands. In the end, it'll come down to value.

rsholland · December 2001

Both brands have come a long way since the late 80's. I think Subaru has perhaps come even further than Honda in that time span. If you visit any of the Subaru forums here at Edmunds, you will find a pretty fanatical following of that brand.

Bob

canadiancl · December 2001

appearance-wise. The whole tire-wheel combo has to be bigger. If you look at the Pathfinder, or even the ML320, their wheels are also relatively small. But because the tires are wider and bigger, everything looks right.

illinoiscentra · December 2001

I just bought a Forester S, and considered CR-V, Camry, and a stripped, below-invoice Maxima. Have yet had the pleasure to drive the Forester in the snow, but I can say this - the Forester is cramped in the backseat, and the rear cargo area is small too. CR-V has it beat in both.

I just could not bring myself to pay MSRP, the Honda dealer had none to sell until January and even then they were silver, wife shot down markroberts.com, and the old car needed to be repaired.

I drive on the interstate to get to work, and I thought the Forester had a slight edge in acceleration at highway speeds, IMO. At lower speeds I could not tell the difference.

IMO, I would wait until the spring and hopefully the prices on CR-V's are down.

ateixeira · December 2001

Sorry to blow the whistle, but you should compare a 1987 Subaru to a 1987 Honda to be fair.

Since 1995 Subaru has not had a single car make Consumer Reports' "Reliability Risks" list (BTW Honda does, and not just Isuzu clones). Honda may score higher overall, but Subaru is actually more consistent.

Reliability is solid for both, but the Forester's powertrain warranty is a lot longer, 5/60 to Honda's 3/36. Subaru also offers roadside assistance for 3 years, Honda does not.

CR-V's biggest advantager is rear passenger space, but to piedra that does not matter. I do like the new seats that slide forward in the CR-V. In fact, I think the two vehicles have a lot more in common than most folks seem to think (rain rails, big 4 cylinder, similar power and torque, similar weight, etc).

The cold start issue may be that manual tranny Foresters get only a 260 CCA battery, and that is weak. $30 for 535 CCAs at WalMart, I replaced mine after 3 years. Not a significant issue, IMHO. Subarus are very, very popular in Colorado and I have not heard many complaints about that.

Resale is good. I paid $19,200 for mine and they blue book for $15k. For 3 years, that is top notch resale, more than 78% the original value.

Both are safe, too. Honda ought to improve on IIHS tests and already had good NHTSA scores. Both good choices here.

I'd wait for the prices on the CR-V to level off, but right now you have more bargaining power at the Subaru dealer. They've never offered rebates, contrary to what some have implied, but you can get them for invoice, just as you could the outgoing CR-V models.

Check out www.fitzmall.com if you live near DC, they start under $19k for a 5 speed L (not at all stripped, even has ABS) to about $24k for an S Premium auto with the world's largest moonroof, automatic, and leather.

varmit · December 2001

Hayduke - I've had similar experiences with Soobs in the past, but Bob is right about their current products. It started with the last version of the Legacy and the latest Impreza. Both have been as reliable as the average Honda.

In the sample of Forester vs. CR-V, the CR-V has been rated as the better of the two. At first, the gap wasn't a big deal. But last year's results show a gap that could now be called significant. The CR-V was rated as "most reliable" for the American market. We'll have to wait and see if the new model achieves the same lofty ranking.

Illinoiscentral - I think the poster who asked doesn't need the backseat. Cargo volume for the Forester is good enough for camping which was his/her intended use. So I think the Forester should do.

BTW, are we talking backpacking or "car-camping"? (I assumed backpacking.) Because the '01 CR-V has a bed feature that might come in handly for car-camping. The '02 model only has a lounge chair configuration. It isn't as flat.

rsholland · December 2001

has a '96 Impreza Outback with over 80K, and has had it since new. NothingI mean NOTHING, has broken. The wife has an '01 Forester with 2K on it. Again no problems.

So, either a Subie or a CRV will do fine. It just depends on what features you value more.

Bob

varmit · December 2001

As long as we're passing annecdotes... A poster at the CR-V IX has 184+K on his 97. Only work done is a replaced CV boot (damaged by a corn stalk). He's an Agricultural Consultant and tows a trailered ATV through the fields about 25% of the time. He gave up a Jeep Cherokee for the CR-V and has never looked back.

My own CR-V has 50K and zero problems. I did have to replace a set of wiper blades. I don't expect everyone to be so lucky, though.

Spyponder · December 2001

Juice is right, to be fair you'd have to compare a 1987 Subaru vs. a 1987 Honda. The problem is, you'd have to find such a Subie first; most of 'em rusted out long ago. Plenty of '87 Hondas around though...

hayduke01 · December 2001

Ateixeira, I agree that comparing the '87 Subaru to the '93 Honda isn't a fair comparison.

To continue the unfair comparison, I've been stuck in snow twice in the Honda, and just once in the Subaru. In the Honda, both times were heavy spring snowstorms on unplowed roads within walking distance of home. Have never owned snowtires, as snow cover usually doesn't last long in Colorado Springs. One time snowtires probably would have made the difference; the other time even some big 4WD vehicles were getting stuck. The one time in the Subaru I pulled off a dirt road with hardpacked snow to park for some backcountry skiing. The snow I pulled into was softer and deeper than I expected, so had to have a little help to get out.

I'm confident that both manufacturers have improved considerably since '87 and '93.

The rear seat does matter on my choice for when my parents or my wife's parents come to visit. Cargo volume is also a slight consideration, and being able to put a bike upright in the back would be a big plus.

rsholland · December 2001

Wife's '01 Forester has 21K, not 2K.

Bob

hcmmike · December 2001

Hey all. I'm new to this board and to the CR-V. I'm picking up my silver EX tomorrow night. I paid MSRP but my 1993 Mazda flunked inspection so I had to move now - couldn't wait for next year. Not too many 2002 CR-V's in St. Louis - they are going off the lot as soon as they hit town

. I researched more than I care to think and test drove several SUV's. Hard to make a decision - my wife told me I was worse than a woman when it came time to decide. All I knew was I had to get away from the family sedan look:)

In the end, once I decided to go with a smaller SUV, Honda's reliability and efficiency got me. I couldn't take the gear shift in the Escape/Tribute and the Santa Fe was too new. I could have gotten a great deal on an Xterra (only $2500 more) but it just didn't seem too well put together. My 14 year old daughter loved the design/exterior of the Xterra but when we drove the Honda, she knew (despite her years) that it was the much better vehicle. I went with my head and not my heart (I liked the Xterra's looks too) but I have to tell you every time I see the new 2002 CR-V's, I find the look growing on me.

varmit · December 2001

Actually, one of my family's Soobs was an '87 wagon. The tranny was the biggest problem, but it did rust pretty badly. We bought it new. My father's '86 Accord ran much better and longer. We got it secondhand. This was the car that attracted me to Hondas. It also had rust problems, but to a much lesser degree. The paint was pretty badly faded, though.

varmit · December 2001

Congrats Mchmike!! Post pics when you have some!

ateixeira · December 2001

Subaru uses double-galvandized steel today, so the days of rust are long gone. Since 1993, IIRC.

But think about it - if you have to go back two decades to a completely unrelated model (era, even) to find a significant flaw in a Subaru, that alone ought to sell you on a Forester.

Saw a CR-V in person for the first time, finally. I was in my Miata so it seemed even taller than it is. Taller and more substantial than the first generation, yet a lot more playful looking. I like the taillights now, more Volvo and less Lumina APV, because there is no sheet metal where the D-pillar should be. The headlights are HUGE. Big eyes on that thing, but they give it character. Wheels do look wimpy, it deserves an upgrade option. A lot more presence on the road. Thumbs up.

-juice

jvkalra · December 2001

Now that you have the right tire pressure in your new V, I'm sure the ride is not bumpy. But what about road noise? What effect, if any, does tire pressure have on road noise? I'm assuming that the road noise level is still high. Please clarify, thanks!

rsholland · December 2001

Do I detect a positive comment coming from you regarding Volvo styling?

I always thought you didn't care for their looks...

Bob

beachfish · December 2001

I had an '86 Subaru 4wd GL wagon. I thought it was the last of the carb models, but what do I know. It never failed to start or left me on the side of the road, but it took some fiddling to keep it running right: exhaust parts mostly and CV boots once. Considering I used it for surf fishing, and floated it in salt water at least 6 times, the rust amounted to two small spots on the rear fenders ----- until the front subframes rusted through after 14 years. Still got $400 for it without advertising it.

I think the mid-80s Hondas were 'better' or less clunky anyway.

Wanna talk about my the rust on my 1975 Datsun B210. Me either.

Now I have an '02 Moonroof, I mean ForesterSPremLeatheretc. Very nice. The AWD is a trip the way it let's me throw the car around and recover by using more gas pedal. I haven't figured out how it transfers power to the rear axle before the front wheels slip(weight sensors on the axles?), but I love the result. It is definitely NOT an '86 Subaru. It also weighs nearly 900 pounds more.

My cousin just bought her CRV when the lease ran out. This is longest she ever kept a car. Very good trouble free car.

Another person I know just bought an '02 CRV last week for MSRP and it too is very nice. I'd put larger wheels on it, but then again, I'm going back out on the beach.

In conclusion, thank goodness, I don't know that I'd say the CRV is better (because the Forester's sunroof is bigger) but it certainly isn't any worse.

John

zops · December 2001

I've never been big on extended warranties, especially on Japanese cars. I purchased it on my 91 Corolla and never had to use it. Purchased it on my 97 Honda Accord and still haven't had anything happen although 2 more years to go.
Because this is a totally new CRV design, some have recommende to me to buy the 7/100K extended.
Comments???

beatfarmer · December 2001

I looked long and hard at both the Forester and 'V back in '99 when I bought my EX. Both are great vehicles IMO and both fit similar niches in the market. But there are enough differences between the two to make one a better choice for a particular need. And your personal needs are what are most important to you. If someone is considering either of these vehicles and picks one of them, I don't see how they could make a bad decision either way.

Sure, you could argue the merits of full time AWD vs. automatic part time systems for days. But don't discount one vehicle because it doesn't have a particular feature of another. Can't live without LSD, buy a Forester S. Does that make the L a bad choice for someone else because it doesn't have one? The CR-V? No. It all depends on your needs.
If you don't like a particluar vehicle, don't buy it. There are plenty of choices available.
Biased or ignorant bashing doesn't make anyone look good.

leokadia1 · December 2001

Put the money on some self installed extra for your new crv. When I purchased in March 97 the first CRV. The dealer, offer the extended warrantee a 50% off list, I told him, I buy honda's to avoid problems, and I don't pay up front for problems that are not going to happen!

tidester · December 2001

Congrats, hcmmike and welcome to the boards!

After you bring your new pride and joy home, don't forget to stop in often and share your experiences with us!

tidester
Host
SUVs

tomsr · December 2001

I'll stick with HONDA primarily because service
is easier to find and they don't mix HONDA service
with other makes so the mechanics can be experts.
I work in a service industry (copiers)so I know the pitfalls of trying to service too many brands.
I had a 96 Outback that had a recall and I waited 5 hours before the service manager says they don't have the part.This dealer handled Chrysler.
Hyundai,and Subaru.

marky777 · December 2001

Apparently the seatbelt fix kits haven't hit the Canadian Honda dealers yet. I have an agreement to buy a LX from a dealer at around 4% over cost. Anyway, he's unable to deliver yet as they haven't received the recall fix kits from Honda Canada. Anyone else having this experience???

Patiently waiting...

trilliumsteve · December 2001

Marky777 -- A dealer here in Ottawa told me that all the vehicles arriving had already had the seat belt problem fixed. Of course, they may not know what is really happening, but I would like to think they do.

Do you mind sharing what you paid for the vehicle, before delivery, taxes and accessories? I have been trying to figure out if Canadian dealers are going below MSRP or not, and if so, how much of a discount they are giving.

thorn · December 2001

I saw a show on DirecTV, I believe on Speedvision. It seemed to be one of their one manufacturer showcases.

This was a Subaru showcase. In it a Subaru exec - I believe it was a Subaru exec - asserted that the Forester created its class and that the original CR-V was essentially a rip-off.

I don't know if that person was a liar or a fool but from what I researched on the internet, it confirmed my memory, i.e., that the original CR-V predated the Forester.

Furthermore, Honda marketed an AWD tall wagon from 1984 to the early 1990's.

btw, according to the C&D the CR-V does 0-60 in @8.4. I doubt the Forester can match that.

...The second-gen CR-V scoots to 60 mph in 8.4 seconds. That's a second quicker than its forebear and comfortably below the 9.9-second average we logged among those 11 automatic Lilliputian utes last March. It's also 1.8 seconds quicker than an automatic Toyota RAV4, the vehicle that 28.3 percent of CR-V buyers "cross-shop" first. Still, the major payoff is this Honda's newfound perkiness for the first couple of seconds in each of the lower gears, where it's now way happier to lunge and squirt its way into holes in traffic...
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/roadtests/2001/november/

From anecdotal experience Hondas generally appear to get better than their EPA ratings while Subarus seem to do worse. I would therefore expect that the faster CR-V would actually get better real-world mileage, driver dependent.

ateixeira · December 2001

Bob: I don't think Honda minds being compared with a luxury make like Volvo (which still have too much cladding).

Tom: while most dealers are multi-brand outlets, they do have Subaru-specific teams of mechanics at most dealerships. You just got awful service, plain and simple.

But if you think 5 hours wait for parts is bad, ask 2002 CR-V owners about how long it took to fix their seat belts.

Thorn: EPA ratings for my Forester are 21/27, but I'm averaging above 25mpg for the 2 years that I've been charting mileage. My worst ever was 20.7mpg driving on the beach every day for a week, and my best exceeded 30mpg, far better than the EPA figures. Typically they do not do worse than the EPA figures unless you're driving a WRX all-out on a track.

I'd like to see a CR-V auto compared to a group of autos, for apples-to-apples. Motorweek and the Washington Post both reached 60 in 9.1 seconds in a Forester. Perhaps the boxer engine is better suited to an auto, while the CR-V's iV-TEC is happier with a manual?

-juice

rsholland · December 2001

needs to be updated. It was created for the '01 MY.

Bob

varmit · December 2001

Well, I think he's correct about the current Soob not matching the C&D 0-60 time of 8.4 seconds. But anything around 9.0 to 9.5 is going to be good enough for one of these vehicles.

FWIW, with a 5 speed transmission, the 146 hp CR-V has been timed at 8.6 (MT), 8.9 (Edmunds), and 9.1 seconds (I forget the source).

Originally, one of the Forester's biggest selling points was that it offered more power than the CR-V or RAV4. I doubt that Subaru will allow the Forester to lose that advantage. The trouble is, there are plenty of more powerful vehicles on the market. Having power is no longer unique. Having gobs more power would be unique, but very few people need a rocket ship station wagon. Especially since Soob already offers one in the WRX. IMHO, they need to take a different direction with the new Forester.

The EPA numbers seem accurate for the AT CR-V. The only anecdotal evidence to the contrary has been for the 5 speed, which seems to average 22-26 rather than the 22-25. I myself average 25+ and have a range similar to what Juice is getting in his Forester.

ateixeira · December 2001

Actually, C&D has never tested a manual with the Phase II engine. The earlier DOHC Phase I ranged from 8.9 to 9.5 seconds with a manual, but the newer engine has more peak torque and a broader torque curve. They one in the Lilliputian test was an automatic (Phase II), and it did show an improvement in acceleration with the new engine.

Forester still has the most power and torque for a 4 banger (and for vehicles with 20+ mpg EPA city), but I agree the V6 competition has put on the pressure and more power would be welcome. The 2003 Forester will arrive next summer and the 2004 Forester is rumored to get turbo power.

We just found out the wife is pregnant again, so we'll be cross shopping the new CR-V with the 2003 Forester, the Highlander, along with a few minivans and sport sedans.

-juice

crvic · December 2001

I commute 85 miles round trip on the interstate going 70-75 most of the time (cruise control almost all the wasy). With the '98 V I averaged 23-23.9 miles and with the '02 I'm getting 22-24. Should I expect the mpg to get better as the engine is broken in?

What do you all think?

artdecho · December 2001

Truck Trends (Jan.) has a 4 way comparison between the RAV-4, new CR-V, the Freelander (their fave) and the Escape. Don't recall the times but both the RAV & RV came out on top in the acceleration tests, despite the fact that the Escape & Freelander were both V6's. article is not yet available online (trucktrend.com) so you'll have to browse your local mag. rack.

thorn · December 2001

re: needs to be updated. It was created for the '01 MY.

Certainly. But the Subaru fool/prevaricator was just as wrong when it was made as he is now. The Forester created nothing - it lagged the market and none too successfully.

As Acura proved with the MDX and Honda with its Odyssey, if you're late to market it's better to be the best. The Forester was the former, not anywhere near the latter.

Honda will introduce another new SUV in January for sale later in 2002:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/mear.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2001/autos/0112/05/b01-359064.htm

robertsmx · December 2001

MT's TOY comparo included 2002 CRV with automatic transmission. It did 0-60 in 8.9s. So one can assume that CRV could do 0-60 in low 8 seconds with manual and about 9 seconds with automatic.

Some other 'trucks' tested,
Liberty V6 (0-60: 10.0s)
Freelander V6 (0-60: 10.5s)
Xterrar Supercharged (0-60: 8.8s)

They also mention that none of the vehicles considered got stuck in any of their off-road excursions unlike yester-year experiences.

rsholland · December 2001

as a "brand" is moving towards a performance image. The WRX is just the first of several high-performance vehicles that Subaru will offer here. There's a Forester turbo that's been confirmed for MY04, and there's going to be an all-new Legacy GT turbo for MY05. I think the Forester will be positioned as a "performance alternative" to other SUVs.

Bob

inky · December 2001

I still see many paying MSRP or near. If you have the time--Mark Roberts Honda sells CRVs at $316 over invoice every day every week. Only charge is $49 Doc fee. Dealer in Bartlesville, OK. Check out pricing on WEB site www.autoinvoice.com and call my salesman John Page at 1-800-375-less if interested. No $316 over on Odysseys--shoot!!
INKY

ateixeira · December 2001

thorn: You must be kidding.

The Forester created new sales for Subaru, with growth every single year since its launch, while needing no rebates. Better yet, it didn't cannabalize sales from the Outback, whose sales also grew, instead most were conquest sales. Keeping in mind Subaru is a small, niche manufacturer, the Forester was a total home run any way you look at it.

Subaru was the first to put 4WD in a passenger car platform, way back in 1973, and the Outback started the crossover craze (followed by the RAV4). The CR-V and Forester were late comers, yes, but Subaru was still the pioneer here.

As to being the best, Forester sat at the top of the Consumer Reports ratings for years. It also won a C&D comparo, and knocked the CR-V out of the top spot in the JD Power APEAL category. Many in the media disagree with you.

beatfarmer was dead-on.

-juice

varmit · December 2001

"So one can assume that CRV could do 0-60 in low 8 seconds with manual and about 9 seconds with automatic."

Sounds about right to me. FWIW, this is about the same (or not far from) the performance figures for the 200hp Tribape.

I have to side with Juice about the Forester's success. While it doesn't rival the top sellers for market share, the Forester is selling well for Subaru's size. They have a smaller distribution outlet and smaller production capacities.

I think Thorn was referencing a sigle comment regarding the mini-ute category, not the entire evolution of the car-based 4X4.

tidester · December 2001

Congratulations!

tidester
Host
SUVs

crvic · December 2001

When I bought the '98 V I remember getting a call from the dealer's biz manager and my salesman. I got a couple of thank-you letters from HONDA as well. It's been 2 weeks since I took delivery of the 2002 CR-V and nobody has contacted me....I'm beginning to wonder...

2001 - 2006 Honda CR-Vs

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles