Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Precisely my take on this. Tests done by and for the insurance industry. My safety is not the issue, $ amount of damage they will have to pay out is. Results of which indicate to such companies how to get:
Mo'Money-Mo'Money-Mo'Money!
Sure, the headlamp shouldn't have been damaged in the front-into-angle, but that hardly fits the previous assertion -- that the 5-mph test reveals "how your car will protect you in a minor collision."
BTW, Edmunds also calls it a bumper-basher test:
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/crashtestdata/45199/article.html
"The IIHS also conducts bumper-bashing tests. They run cars and trucks into barriers at 5 mph to see how much damage results, in terms of dollars."
Like I said, let's wait for the IIHS offset frontal impact score, before passing judgement on collision protection.
Secondly, if someone backs into me, most vehicles miss the tire and hit the bumper on the CRV, or lack there of
Then I set the trip thingy to 0 and drove Rosebud until the needle was exactly at the halfway mark.
The trip mileage was 155.
So what's my mileage?
P.S. I've been going through the car wash every few weeks. Is it hurting my paint finish?
Given that the spare tire on most SUVs with rear mounts are set off to the side, the rear pole test only tells half the story. The worst half. I don't have a problem with that, but it would be nice if they conducted the test once on the tire side and once on the non-tire side. That would give a more complete picture.
I understand that doing so would be costly, but by testing only the worse case scenario, they are blowing the results out of proportion.
I'm not making excuses for the CR-V. It scored poorly in the rear impacts. But I think you have to be pretty well educated about the results to keep them in perspective.
Mam9 - Keep track of how far you've driven. Fill up the tank and record how much gas you used. Then divide ths gallons by how many miles you travelled.
Washing regularly shouldn't harm the paint, but make sure Rosebud also gets waxed frequently.
These crash tests aren't "real world" enough. We need a Backing Into a Deer while avoiding a Moose Test. Or maybe an OOPS I Spilled my Coffee and Hit the Car in Front of Me Test. :-)
Greg: the poor results were on the rear end of the CR-V, not the front. Still, I agree they're testing to measure different things, and the higher speed crash tests are of far greater concern, at least they are to me.
Though tom_k brought up a good point - what if a Suburban owner that practices parking by braille hits you and drives off, then you're stuck with the repair bills? That is not your fault, nor Honda's.
I think a T Bar like tomsr mentions could help. It could even be designed to break away if certain forces are exerted on it. I dunno.
-juice
-juice
Just on the next day when I drove it on a bumpy freeway which shook the car while only traveling at 60 mph, I heard a rattle in the headliner, somewhere near the moonroof. At the time, the moonroof shade is all the way closed.
When I open the moonroof shade, whether just slightly or all the way, the rattling stops.Does anyone have this type of problem on their car? This is a brand new car and the rattle is loud enough to notice it even with the radio on.
Anyone help please! Its driving me nuts!
Good luck
I'm sure Honda is thrilled to have the CR-V on their main home page for a good score, rather than the poor bumpers.
Redemption?
-juice
I just picked mine up last night - quite nice - I'm very happy with my Blue CRV EX.
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
tidester
Host
SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories
These results mean that the 2nd gen 'V is now the FIRST and ONLY SUV to ever achieve perfect "good" scores in each and every one of the safety related IIHS tests. The only other SUVs to achieve perfect scores in the IIHS off-set crash tests are the BMW X5 and Acura MDX. However, both the X5 and MDX suffered a minor blemish in the head restraint rating (X5 got an "acceptable" rating while the MDX only got "marginal" in that category). The 'V is the only SUV to get all goods in the off-set crash categories as well as the head restraint category
Combined with the fact that the 2nd gen 'V is already the FIRST and ONLY SUV to ever receive perfect 5 star ratings in each and every one of the NHTSA's crash test categories, I'd say that the CR-V Engineer deserves one helluva bonus!
Being picky... the head restraints rating is based on geometry, not a crash test. I've often wondered about those ratings as the results don't seem to be consistent. They list several different results for the 1st gen CR-V, though the design of the headrests and seats never changed.
What's really sad is that regardless of what Honda decides, their vehicles will still sell. Make a mistake, sell 98,000 copies. Get it right, sell 100,000 copies. It's a no-brainer, so long as it comes with the Honda 'H' on the hood.
I'm expecting some people to say get a Lexus, or "what else do you expect for $20K, etc etc". I really want a Honda, hope Honda is listening.
LOL. Probably a senior moment. I must've read that wrong. I thought you're post read, "These results mean that the 2nd gen 'V is now the FIRST and ONLY SUV to ever achieve perfect "good" scores in each and every one of the safety related crash IIHS tests."
Mea culpa!
What's amazing is that regardless of what vehicle topic I visit, this type of statement keeps appearing. Only the name of the automaker changes.
Varmint, I think I did make some minor edits, but nothing substantive
situations? Sports car low for speed and offroad
high for the 1% of the the time you need it.
In some parts of the country you need it's
height but in SoCal most every road is paved.
I still say that if Honda brought in the Accord
wagon with 200HP it would sell well because they want a utility Honda but a freeway flyer too.The
Mazda 6 wagon will test that theory.If Volvo
turbo wagons were cheaper I would have one
except for it's reliability problems.
Look closely at the photos and you'll notice the Forester and CR-V A-pillars remained basically intact. Both were better than previous designs. The safety cocoons held up impressively.
varmint: remember, the poor bumper results were on the rear bumper, not the front. I agree there isn't necessarily a correlation, though. I don't think there are any rear crash tests, so perhaps we'll never know.
civicw: thanks, and note that my quote spefically mentions the CR-V we test drove, so it's on topic! It should be in the current copy of Business Week, both print and on-line.
tom: can you point out where in DC the traffic flows at 80mph? It eludes me. ;-)
-juice
I like the cladding on the stock CRV also, it's in good spots to reduce paint chips and typical wear from shopping carts, etc. I don't prefer the aftermarket cladding, but it's available for those that do, as an option. Might be nice if I drove a lot on dirt or stone roads.
As for road noise, it depends what you're used to. It's not bad in my opinion, but my other car is a Nissan Altima. If you're more sensitive to it, you might want to look into a quieter tire, I just changed tires on my altima and noticed a quieter ride. Or, spend $100-$200 on some aftermarket sound deadening. That would help a lot, and still keep the price of the CRV attractive compared to it's competitors.
You're right about one thing...as long as Honda keeps making cars that are very reliable, user friendly, and have the best features in class with competitive pricing, they won't have any problem selling cars. Reputation of reliability is powerful for maintaining repeat buyers, but it seems like there are always buyers ready to take chances on makes with uncertain records.
If they made any significant "mistakes" there would certainly be an impact in their sales numbers. Also, some of the things that you or I might complain about are the very features that might sell someone else on the car. Which competitor in the price range has the quieter ride and less "rugged" styling you are referring to? I'm sure there are trade-offs with that vehicle also, possibly including price.
I'm not a Honda zealot, by the way. Nissan, Subaru and Honda have proven reliable for my family and myself, so they're where I look first. Mass produced cars are, by definition, a compromise of desires. I buy the car that has the least number of drawbacks, since the perfect car isn't out there at my price range:)
I was referring back to earlier posts where Bear had stated that there was a correlation. Front or back is not an issue. If there's no correlation for the front of the car, why would we expect it to apply to impacts at the back?
Tomsr - If you are going to be driving at 80mph on a regular basis, you most definitely should look into some upgraded tires. The ones that GatorGreg suggested a while back have been getting universally positive reviews.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/772141.asp
And Land Rover makes it worse by making the following insinuation:
"... IIHS ratings for Small SUVs shows that those vehicles that get “GOOD” ratings in their high-speed crash performance do not do well in their low-speed bumped damage tests ... those vehicles that get GOOD low-speed marks do not do as well in the high-speed tests. Freelander does very well in the aspect that should be of most concern to buyers: occupant protection."
Rather ironic; the Forester (and the Freelander) totally disproves their statement.
Honda (and Subaru) deserve a lot of credit here.
I'm happy to see those crash test results too. I think the CR-V is proof that the tests are leading to safer vehicles. My understanding is that the testing methodologies are completely open, so there ought to be no reason why all car companies shouldn't be scoring aces in the next few years. Then the public should prod the agencies to raise the bar again before complacency sets in again.
Oh, and just in case anyone is still under the illusion that the public will automatically gobble up anything with the "H" badge: Passport, Prelude, Odyssey (pre-'99). IMHO, market failure of the upcoming Element is even a plausible scenario.
http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/svolwag.asp
Wmquan - IIHS offset is fairly tough crash test. I don't think that the Freelander's score of "Acceptable" is bad at all. It's acceptable. Nothing more, nothing less. If the Freelander scored well (4-5 stars) on the NHTSA tests, I wouldn't rule it out.
I agree with you regarding Rover. Their statement should be rated, "bowowogus", on the Tappert bros. scale. There is no correlation, either positive or negative.
Slugline - I agree. However, there is always the possibility that manufacturers could develop cars that meet the most salient crash tests without being designed well for overall safety. Rather than make the ratings tougher, they should change the tests slightly or create completely new tests.
Good point regarding sales. Especially the Prelude. The American public never warmed up to it. That car had both the Honda badge AND was one of the most lauded sport coupes in the automotive press.
Sure, a plant manufacturing a new product will have to climb a learning curve to become as proficient as an experienced plant. But if proper quality controls are in place, that should only mean a slower rate of production at first, not lower quality.
But do I agree with you that "Acceptable" is sure better than "marginal" and "poor". My main issue was Land Rover implying that they would have "Good" scores, both with and without bumper score correlations!
IIHS has made some comments that they hope one day to stop the tests, but I can't see how they can do it so long as some new models still score "acceptable", "marginal", or "poor".
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml#estimates
The EPA sets up the rules. They testing to determine the numbers on the sticker are under controlled laboratory conditions.
They are useful as a guide, but should not be taken as gospel IMHO.
You can email me at jkworth@toad.net
Sorry to interrupt, folks. I love my 2000 5-speed!
So the result is not bad, considering it's better than the last CR-V managed.
Audi allroad quattros cost an arm and a leg. Accords would be in a much higher volume segment. I've heard rumors of 5 speed autos, 240hp, 6 speed manuals. Heck, I'd be interested in a wagon with those features.
-juice
I recall seeing the RAV4 in an airport in Pittsburg, and got excited about the arrival of the new class of cute utes.
We've come a long way, no? :-)
-juice