Those of you who are claiming that the 5 mph IIHS tests have ANYTHING to do with safety need to get a clue and watch THIS MOVIE of a REAL safety test. I think it may help put the silly 5 mph pole test in proper perspective. I for one am GLAD that Honda's engineers spend their time worrying about stuff that really matters, like life and death, and not worrying about how to save my insurance company money if I back into a pole. Would anyone seriously consider putting their family at additional risk by driving them around in a vehicle with inferior NHTSA crash test scores, just because it offers them the comfort of knowing that they had excellent IIHS 5 mph bumper results? I certainly hope not. Don't forget, the 2nd gen 'V is the first (and still the only AFAIK) SUV to get 5 stars in each of the NHTSA's four crash test categories. (Be sure to watch for the flying "i-VTEC" badge in the movie )
"If it was a safety test that measures injury, they'd have dummies in the vehicles. Instead, it's a bumper test that measures injury to the wallet or insurance company!"
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:
As I've stated before, the 5-mph crash test is designed to measure damage to the wallet or insurance company. If there is any peripheral damage to safety equipment (e.g. a broken headlamp), it is noted as "safety-related damage."
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."
I am not concerned about the 5 mph bumper test results because if I am dumb enough to back into things that is my own fault, NOT honda.
Secondly, if someone backs into me, most vehicles miss the tire and hit the bumper on the CRV, or lack there of So 5 mph test results is not an issue for me!
I'm a mathematical idiot, so bear with me. At the pump I let the tank fill until the automatic shut off. 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?
Daveghh - What I find interesting is that the IIHS will change their testing methodology under certain circumstances. With the VUE and Trailblazer, they shifted the impact for the pole test to either the left or right. This way they could inflict more damage. However, they do not shift the pole test in situations where it will inflict less damage.
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.
Carlos: get a CR-V and then buy some dynamat. Or crank up the tunes.
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.
Always look at the gas pump after it stops filling and write down the number of gallons your car took. Then write down the number of miles driven before you reset the trip counter. Take the number of miles and divide them by the number of gallons and, voila, there's your mileage. You can't judge by the half tank mark. Tanks differ--sometimes you may actually have a couple gallons more or less than what you think. Hope this helps.
I am pretty much a math moron, too, MAM9, so I keep things very simple. I like to know which gas types my car likes, so I check mileage with every fillup. I reset the trip odometer each time I fill up, get a receipt with each fillup, and simply divide the trip odometer reading (miles I've gone since last fillup) by the number of gallons I just got to fill it back up. Only works for full fill-ups, not partials. Hope this helps.
I have just gotten a new 2002 Honda CR-V EX yesterday.
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.
Calden3, I enjoyed your reviews of the four vehicles. I have a CR-V and agreed with your evaluations. I wish it had a bit more front seat leg room as well. One thing that has been mentioned frequently is that you can change out the factory tires for better ones to lower the road noise. I haven't done that but I will get much better tires when mine wear out. Overall, I do think the CR-V is the best value going. Cheers.
Can anyone recommend a popular synthetic oil. My 2002 CRV EX is ready for the first oil change and I would like to use synthetic oil. I will probably change it every 7,500 miles at least. Any experiences or opinions would be very much appreciated thanks, Mark
Sorry it took so long to answer your Coscto question - I posted it once and it was either deleted by the moderator for having too much info or deleted by me in an operator error. Either way, to get the local dealer, use the zip code 48017 when you search for a quote.
I just picked mine up last night - quite nice - I'm very happy with my Blue CRV EX.
You should have gotten mail from us if we had zapped your post. We do frown on posting contact info (like email addresses and phone numbers) on the boards. Don't want the boards to look like er, a used car lot, and we don't have time to verify that the numbers are legit. Posting emails may get you spammed too; better to stick your personal contact info in your profile and mark it public to lessen that risk. Steve Host SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
ateixeira, wow, those are impressive results! (BTW, here's another LINK to the IIHS off-set crash test report since the one you posted didn't work for me.)
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!
Now we have another test disproving the notion that expensive bumper repairs equate poor safety at higher speeds.
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.
ruin an otherwise fine vehicle, from my perspective. I know Honda has no trouble selling the CR-V to the public, but they sure have made it hard for a loyal Honda owner who wants to graduate to a quiet, compact Honda, that doesn't have that phony rugged look afforded by the exterior spare tire and excessive use of black cladding.
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.
Being doubly picky With regards to your second point I fully agree. Which is why when I wrote "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" I deliberately omitted the word "crash". I created the phrase "safety related IIHS tests" to encompass both the 40mph off-set crash tests as well as the head restraint rating. I suppose it would have been more accurate to say "safety related IIHS tests and ratings" If your "pick" wasn't directed specifically at me, then as Rosanne Rosanna-Danna would say, "nevermind"
Don't know if this has been mentioned on some other board. Read about Juice's decision to get the Subaru Legacy wagon in Business Week's cover story, page 106. Juice, congratulations, you're famous!
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."
I'm close to pulling the trigger on a CR-V but am wondering if I should wait for the '03s - anyone know if they'll be out in August or not until Sept / Oct?
For those who missed it, the 2nd gen 'V just got GREAT pub from the Dateline piece. The 'V got the most air-time and they focused on the improvements made from the 1st gen to the 2nd gen, even showing a rerun of the '98 test. They also talked about how great the Forester did, but they did mention that the "old problem" (right leg/foot injury) surfaced once again in the 2003 Forester.
Varmint, I think I did make some minor edits, but nothing substantive I basically copied an earlier post of mine from another forum. BTW, although you are correct that the head-restraint rating is based on geometry and not a crash test, according to the IIHS: "Institute ratings are good predictors of how well people will be protected in rear-end crashes -- drivers with restraints rated good are less likely than those with poor restraints to claim neck injuries." So the "C" word does play a part in the head-restraint ratings, but only in theory. In any event, I think it is fair to characterize the head-restraint rating as a "safety related IIHS test" along with the 40mph off-set crash test. I'm sure you know all this already, but here's a LINK to more info on the IIHS head-restraint rating for those who care to read more about it
At 80 MPH the CRV tends to float and if not just going straight a little scary.Is it possible to have a variable ride height for different driving 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.
Greg: the results are truly great, but keep in mind the X5 and MDX cannot be compared directly because they are in a different weight class.
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. ;-)
I'd rather have the spare on the outside of the car, rather than underneath or inside. It really helps make the interior more roomy. I'm comparing to a pathfinder with spare underneath whose cargo area seems smaller.
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:)
"varmint: remember, the poor bumper results were on the rear bumper, not the front. I agree there isn't necessarily a correlation, though."
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.
It is rather ironic that Land Rover tried dismissing their bumper test results with the excuse that they concentrate on higher-speed crashworthiness. But then they only manage an "acceptable" in the 40-mph offset frontal crash test! At least the CR-V pulled an outstanding performance in the offset test!
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.
dynamat is the car stereo brand that most people are familiar with. A car stereo shop could do the work, and use a cheaper generic material also, especially on areas like under carpets. Home Depot has a roofing patch material that people have used with good success too, if you were interested in doing it yourself. They're tar/rubberish looking sheets that stick when heated. I've seen some carpet backing attached to the insides of doors, also. I guess it depends what you're looking for.
tomsr: I am pretty much in agreement with you. I think the public may be ready for another Accord wagon. Variable ride height is a neat idea, but I'm not sure there is enough demand out there to justify the expense. Anybody know how many allroads is Audi selling?
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.
Dtruong88 - I purchased dynamat from Crutchfield.com. It ain't cheap, but it works OK. There are less expensive alternatives, but they will may be as heat resistant (important if you use it on the firewall or anywhere else under the hood).
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.
I agree with varmint in Msg# 8096 on the issue of manufacturing quality. The same issue came up in the 80's when Honda started building cars in the U S. The quality concerns about the Marysville plant circulated by word-of-mouth and did not seem to be based on fact. In reality, U S-built Hondas have not acquired a reputation as being inferior to Japan-built Hondas. I expect the same will happen with Swindon, unless there is real evidence to the contrary.
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.
I just filled up for the first time with my new CRV and in a mix of city / highway, I got 22.5 mpg. I think it will get better as it breaks in. I also think the Japanese plants build a better quality vehicle than the U.S. Honda. I had a U.S. made 2001 civic that was in the shop 11 times in 18 months before I was sick of it and traded for the CRV. So far, this Japanese vehicle is Outstanding!
I think the "bar is being raised" constantly on crash test scores. "Acceptable" may have been acceptable several years ago. But given that so many vehicles now get "Good", I think it's time to consider raising the bar. We all know that, overall, vehicles are safer today than in the past. So while we may be getting "diminishing returns" on safety, it's still important to distinguish the various levels. And there are still buyers who want that additional level of safety. It's not as quite clear-cut in the small-SUV category where there are relatively fewer "Good" performers, but in the mid-sized category there are now quite a few.
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".
Hey Varmint, this is John, from the mid-Atlantic meets. I have a question--I seem to remember you are from Massachusetts. We are going to Cape Cod and I want to go offroad. Is/are there any good no-paved roads? We are going to North Truro. Thanks.
You can email me at jkworth@toad.net
Sorry to interrupt, folks. I love my 2000 5-speed!
Remember something, folks, the Freelander was designed well before the last CR-V, as it existed in Europe. Rumors (not mine, hold the hate mail) are that some Honda guys saw an early prototype and that's what inspired Honda to make the CR-V.
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.
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