I have a 4WD 5sp 02 CRV. The shift feels wonderful. It is precise, smooth and effortless. The only problem is that a sixth gear is needed to reduce the rpm at high speeds. Currently at 5th gear, CRV revs at 3000 rpm at 60 mph, 3600 rpm at 75 mph. Unfortunately my CRV operates mostly at 75 mph which is one of the reasons I can only get 24-25 mpg.
I would only consider the VW TDI as a second vehicle to the CRV.
I've got as high as about 32 mpg with my 99 EX auto. Have also pulled a large 17 foot boat with 90 hp motor with it, but was against a stiff breeze of about 30mph and had to stay in 3rd, so it was a little touchy.
Currently in Canada diesel is about 50 cents a gallon cheaper than gas ( gas is heavily taxed here so diesel vehicles make economic sense to poor mechanics
The picture above shows the rear view aid. Looking at it: -On the bottom left, you can make out part of the spare tire. -On the left edge you can make out the pole and its base that's located 4 ft behind the spare tire.(see below) -On the bottom edge you can make out the snow about 4 ft behind the vehicle on the ground. -Typically, backing into a spot with a car behind me. I find that I can get to within 2 feet before the leading edge of it's hood dissappears. The taller the hood, the closer I can get before it becomes a blind spot.
Here are a few pics looking back through the inside of our CRV. I drove to my wife's work location, only 3 miles from our house. (They're both on base) The inside pic makes the view a little more distorted than it actually is. I tried using the flash, but that pic was worse than this one without the flash.
The aid itself is only 6x8" and doesn't block much of the rear window. I placed it offset to the driver's side, so that I could still see it through the back. Moving it too close to center brings the spare tire in too much. My wife is only 5' 2", so putting it down and to the right into the recessed portion of the rear window made it hard to see through the rear view mirror. Otherwise that would be a good place for it, and the spare tire would entirely dissappear.
After reading the forums I have finally decided what I want in a small SUV: The body styling of the Sorento The use of interior space of a CRV The reliability of the CRV The Accord's V6 The fold down front passenger seat of the Vue The gas tank of the Suburban The side head bags of the Vue The third seat configuration of a Tarsus station wagon
Sorry about your accident, from your description your very lucky it could have been a lot worse.
I have a question about tire rotation on my 2002 CRV. I want to rotate and include the spare haven't had any spares but donut tires for many years from what I remember when I rotated with a spare tire you took the front left off and used that as the spare and put the present spare on the right rear. Is that correct or does Honda have another recommendation? Nothing in the owners manual on this but from what I read in your posts you have a pretty good knowledge on these vehicles.Thanks.
Robmarch - I expected higher asking prices on a hybrid CR-V, but power should not have to suffer much if Honda does its homework. So, yes, I would be willing to sacrifice a bit of $$ (but not what the first hybrids were commanding over the past 5 years) to pollute less and get better gas mileage. I really encourage those folks who are still interested in noisy, extremely dirty, smelly diesel engines on non-working vehicles, to seriously reconsider, since diesels really don't offer much benefit from what I've heard and seen, and they contribute much bad to the environment and neighborly relations.
GGy - What I like about my 02 5-spd LX: short throw, generally smooth action (except when engine is cold, plus some recurrent clunkiness going into 3d, at least on mine). What I don't like: not as easy (yet) to achieve very fast, seamless shifts for lane acceleration, and no "6th" gear for higher rpms.
Some of what I'm experiencing with shifts is probably that I'm still adjusting to the CR-V feel -- my Suzuki is an entirely different rhythm and feel manual (Suzuki). Still, after 3 months, I'm beginning to wonder about why I'm having trouble gauging quickly where the "sweet spot" is for each gear, esp. 3d.
I agree with someone else who posted gas mileage: My 02 5-spd probably does get better than 25 mpg at 60 - 65 mph, but since my car normally travels at 70+ on highway, the best I can get is 25 - 26 highway, 23 - 24 town. Mountain driving gets me 26 - 28 mpg even at high speeds (pressure difference). I keep my tires at 32 - 35 psi, so I can't blame low tire pressure for the differences.
arkydog, My impression is that the current and near future passenger diesel engines are as clean if not cleaner than the gasoline engines. Yes the EPA recently released a "report" stating that they SUSPECT diesel exhaust to be carcinogenic. I would expect all petroleum products to be harmful. I would like to see more scientific studies done of the complete cycle emissions of gasoline, petro-diesel, and B100 usage. Some studies suggest that the tailpipe emissions of newer gasoline powered cars are cleaner than recent diesel engined vehicles. A snapshot does not tell the whole story. Gas exhaust purportedly has smaller particulate matter that can penetrate deeper into the lungs and can float for several hundred miles where as diesel particulate is larger and usually falls to the ground within a few hundred feet. Particulate traps are being added to diesel engined cars. NOX is also being addressed. B100 eliminates something like 90% of the carcinogenic aspect of petro-diesel. "noisy, extremely dirty, smelly diesel engines" is an image of the past and of older technolgy on trucks and buses. New regs. passed 01OCT02 for diesel engines and low sulfur regs. in 2006 will both go a long ways to improving petro-diesel emissions. 30% or so of new cars sold in Europe are diesels. Higher gasoline prices and concern for greenhouse emissions are the driving factors. Batteries are not environmentally benign. I expect near term future diesel engines will be cleaner than gasoline engines at the tailpipe and over the complete cycle from fuel manufacture, fueling, and usage. What is doing more harm to me and the environment? I invite comment. I'm trying to determine which power plant I'd like in my next car/SUV/wagon.
Whether it's gas or diesel, you're gonna get something from the fumes.
I was watching TLC (or was it Discovery?) where they basically said that we're like the inhabitants of Easter Island, but on a much larger scale. By the time the Europeans discovered them, they had used up all of the resources on the island and resorted to cannibalism. We're doing the same thing and the "end" is nearer than what most people suspect and hope. The piece was a bit too pessimistic, but nonetheless true.
to be powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. The emissions are water vapor. The electricity used to extract the hydrogen from water and storing it in a fuel cell can be as clean as wind or solar power, ranging through hydro-electric, to as dirty as a fossil fuel. I think hybrids are transitional until we get economically viable fuel cells. Diesel is still a fossil fuel and non-renewable. It's funny to think that in the Earth's history, one period the Carboniferous, stored almost all the energy that we use today as fossil fuels- and it will probably be gone in our lifetimes.
Fuel Cells sound nice but seem about 15 years away for mass production. Gas/electric hybrids still utilize dead dinosaurs, batteries are harmful, and the technology is still expensive. The diesel engine was meant to run on plant oil. Using B100 to fuel diesel engined passenger vehicles utilizes existing technology, infrastructure, and a closed carbon cycle. The problems I'm aware of are high NOX (possible tech solution in months to a year), availability of B100 (which could change in months), and lack of selection of diesel engined cars (currently only VW Golf and Jetta, this too could be changed in months to a year). What am I missing?
I've got a 98 EX w/ manual 5-speed tranny and it's smooth as butter. It's really noticeable after I've been driving my 02 Wrangler, too bad Jeep's tranny isn't Honda smooth.
The gearing is low, which is great for around town driving. I do find myself searching for a 6th gear when speeds hit 70+ mph. I've been happy with it over the last 60K miles and think it's contributed to a higher average gas mileage. I tend to get 28mpg around town and as high as 30mpg on the highway. Though, expect less if you typically drive 75+ mph.
The only time I wished I had an automatic was off-road, trying to climb a steep dirt trail. The CR-V had all the traction I needed, but first gear wasn't low enough and I kept stalling. The auto tranny would have given some slippage and I would have got up the hill. But that's only happened once in 60K miles.
scary.... Recently there's been increased concern that geologists have erred in "peak" of oil; that is time when we reach the midpoint of our oil supplies. New estimates place peak at end of this decade instead of 40 years down the road. After peak, oil prices will only go up. Now that's scary.
Fuel cell vehicles will be mass produced in the next 1 to 2 years. Honda has a FC ?? in test markets already, and has announced production plans for 04 as I recall. Promise of fuel cell technology was to be able to provide home energy generation plants at reasonable cost.
Slow43 - You might want to add the Accord's driver seat to your list.
Inkie - Off the top of my head, I do not recall the exact pattern for a five tire rotation. You might try tirerack.com or another retailer. They often have consumer information like that.
01r1 - I think what you needed was a low gear transfer case. The manual CR-V's first gear is the lowest I've ever seen. Although the automatic may give smoother power delivery, it is geared much higher.
Yes the automatic would make it much smoother. My train of thought was how an automatic's torque converter lets it 'slip' while starting out. Even though the auto's 1st gear is higher, the slip factor effectively gives you a variable gear ratio that's much lower than the manual tranny locked into 1st. You can 'slip' with a manual tranny too, but there's more wear and tear to the manual's clutch than to an auto's torque converter.
Yes, I agree, if you do much of that, you'll need something with a low range.
Gas/electric hybrids still utilize dead dinosaurs...
Actually, petroleum is from plants. Sinclair oil created the myth with their dinosaur commercials (which I read about in ANCIENT texts! ;-) Moonkat will verify this as he is known to stay at Best Westerns! :-)
ateixeira - I would also add these on my ideal SUV.
* Retractable 3rd seat from Pilot or MDX * One piece lift gate (minivan type) with power rear window from 4Runner (Don't like those two-pieces type from Land Cruiser/LX470, BMW X5 and others side-swing type from CR-V, RAV4 when it's different to load stuffs from one side.) * Integrated tow hitch from Grand Cherokee
I have been debating about the rearview aid. I already installed a backup-aid that displays the distance from the closes obstacle- but a visual confirmation would be safer.
I wonder if you can take it off or move it at will or is it permanemt- also -can it be affected by the rear defroster i.e. melt?
I would have much preferred to wait for the hydrogen cell -- or best, solar power -- but mass-produced versions of that technology were just too far in the future for me and my ailing 93 Suzuki. I would have gone with a hybrid powered CR-V if they had had one, despite the battery, which I would hope can be recycled once the "newer technologies" catch on. I didn't realize Honda had the CR-V just around the corner, which I hope they do.
The newer, cleaner, quieter(?) diesel engines for passenger-type vehicles sound interesting. I just haven't read anything that convinces me that they run cleaner or more efficiently than hydrogen or electric hybrid, so diesel just means another version of "petro-" to me.
I would love to find a well-equipped, efficient, powerful small SUV that uses a clean, recyclable power source, so I can say "Shove It" to Big Oil. That would be my dream carriage. Maybe in my lifetime?
I like the CRV, I like the Vue, I like the Sorento, and I like the Highlander. I realize every thing automotive is a compromise.
I think Honda did a good job with the '02 CRV. The "Ideal SUV", I like Juice's (Post 9320) side curtain air bag of the Passat, Varmit's (Post 9319) Accord driver's seat, and for fun (Post 9323) Lok888's power rear window from 4Runner. On a realist note (rare for me) I know a man who has a 4x4 Suburban. He believes that the bigger vehicle is safer than a CRV. I would like Honda to know that I would be willing to pay for the side curtain air bag to help protect my passengers and me from these larger vehicles.
One of the things I like most about the CRV is the amount of backseat passenger legroom. I am 6'2'' and in many vehicles when someone is behind me I have to slide my seat up for them to have room for their legs. The CRV has the backseat legroom of a ML320 (I like this vehicle but I really cannot afford it). The legroom issure is very important to me. I want my passengers to be comfortable.
On fuel, only when the price of oil goes up will alternative fuels be an option. I am surprise that England has not done more with alternative forms of energy with gas costing so much there. I realize thier gas price is mostly tax. IMO in the US gas is cheap. That is why we have the Suburban and Expeditions. Please, Suburban and Expeditions people don't flame me. I have a friend with a big family and a camper trailer, this vehicle is perfect for his family. Again IMO, when the cost for a fill-up is $200-250 vs. $60-80 buying patterns will change.
Dead plants and not dead animals... thanks, Tidester. Arkydog, good stuff. FC run from hydrogen or ethanol sounds best but I contend is still at least ten years out for the general public. Gas/electric hybrids and diesels both would improve MPG by about 30% over the current gasoline engine. The diesel could be run on B100 (grown and processed in country from soybeans, flaxseed, or recycled cooking grease). The diesel engine would last a bit longer than the gas engine and batteries. The diesel would also probably be a good deal less expensive than the gas/electric hybrid and could be made available much sooner. As with you, I would like to see some comparisons of tailpipe emissions and lifetime environmental impact of gas, gas/electric, diesel (low sulfur petro 2006), diesel (B100 - 100% biodiesel), both diesels/electric. What I have seen so far is that B100 fueled diesels and gasoline both pollute but differently. When I look at the total life cycle impact of a gasser versus a B100 fueled diesel engined vehicle I lean toward the diesel. I expect to buy at least one more if not two more combustion engined vehicles. Big Oil will be Big Energy. Honda has a 5-dr Civic with a CTDi in Europe. The European Accord is also getting a diesel engine. Any word on when the States will see a gas/electric hybrid CR-V or any diesel engine choices? Juice, Tidester, Varmit, Bueler, anyone?
It goes on easy, just spray some water onto the window, apply plastic and squeeze bubbles out. It comes off easily too, I even have after market tint and haven't had any problems with it when I've had to clean it free of dust.
Why does Honda move the antenna from the rear roof to the front right fender and remove the side mounted signal lights (European style on quarter panels near front doors) on the CR-Vs imported to Canada, U.S.A., and Mexico? I wish they didn't do this. Side curtain air bags and LED amber turn signals and red brake lights integrated into the rear bumper in addition to the lights already present would also be nice.
I was wondering if any pre-2002 CRV owners could advise on whether Michelin Harmony or Yokohama Avid Touring are the way to go...for a quiet tire with good wet weather handling. I've read the Yokohama's have thin sidewalls and mushy handling...?
Glycinemax - During my last conversation with Bueler, he remarked that Honda's diesel plans are limited to European markets. The development of small diesels is only to gain market share in Europe right now. It's a short term fix, not a long term goal.
Here in NA, they figure cars will go from ICE, to hybrid, to fuel cells.
BTW, I have read of no real plans to make a hybrid CR-V. The only thing I've seen from Honda has released was over a year ago and stated that they would build a hybrid version of the Pilot, CR-V, or Accord depending on how well the hybrid Civic sells.
Here's an interesting dilemna. Say Honda did offer a CR-V hybrid. Keeping in mind that it would add about $4 grand to the purchase price, would you really buy one?
Think about it carefully - you would probably never recover your investment, since fuel costs aren't that high to begin with. You might be stuck with a huge battery swap bill in 3-5 years, who knows, that could kill whatever fuel savings you had. Would you really risk it?
Let's do a survey, would you pay roughly $26 grand for a hybrid CR-V EX 5 speed? How much would you really be willing to pay?
I say if the feds had a $3000 tax refund instead of a tax deduction, it would totally be worth it for the extra range you'd get.
Would you just get a Pilot instead for that price? I imagine Civic hybrid buyers are in a similar situation if they look at Accords.
I wish Honda offered all of the features (leather, gadgets galore, etc.), on the CR-V. The problem is how do you have all these things on a vehicle and sell it for $22k (US)? Can't be done. I should say WON'T be done. Why - simply it's what the market will bear. We love our Honda's and Honda knows it. While some changes would be nice, we don't want ot pay more. Honda made it simple - take it or leave it. That's not to say we won't see an "SE" pop-up sometime soon with a few more goodies or they won't continue to make minor improvements with new model years. I had a '98 V and now I own an '02. In those 4 years Honda made some huge improvements ont he V, but it still essentially the same vehicle. An economical, practical Spuvie with just enough features to be a contender int he small spuvie field, but not too many that price it too high.
Juice raised most all the points as to why I'm not serious about the Civic Hybrid. How are sales of that puppy doing? A gas/electric CR-V would be attractive for the longer range and cleaner emissions for something closer to a $500.00 premium. ROI of under five years sounds good shootin' from the hip. Battery replacement cost, environmental impact, and crash safety concerns not withstanding. Still seems like diesel engines fueled with biodiesel and NOX controls is the least expensive and quickest implementable intermediate step to fuel cells. Toyota announced recently they hope to offer hybrids on all their vehicles by 2012. What does that say about fuel cell availability?
If I had to replace the '92 Civic VX (37+ MPG) next year I'd be torn between getting another CR-V, Subaru Legacy wagon, Outback wagon, Forester, and the VW Jetta wagon TDI. Good to have choices. If only we had more engine choices. 2006?
I'm curious, can anyone compare TDI sales to hybrid sales? I'm wondering which is getting more acceptance in the market.
The TDI is about $1300 than the gas 2.0l. To me that seems like a reasonable amount of money to double your range. Even then the 2.0 probably outsells it 10 to 1 (just my guess).
So would a $4000 premium on a CR-V would be a mighty tough sell. Depending on your tax bracket, the most you could get from a $3000 deduction, in a 40% tax bracket, is $1200, so it would still cost you $2800 out of pocket.
The lean burn VX didn't sell that well, did it? Remember the CRX HF? No? I bet you remember the Si. :-)
Besides lean burn, there is direct injection. I'd like to see that become widespread.
tires: I don't know about Harmonys, but Yoko Avid Tourings are noisy on anything but smooth pavement. A better choice for CRV would be Yoko Aegis LS4s. Aggressive tread pattern, though surprisingly quiet and comfortable tire at Avid Touring prices. Also very good in snow and wet; more of an off-road tire. I found the Tourings to be excellent handling - sharper turn-in than Energy MXV4 but thin tread left me feeling they are not good for heavier vehicle. And don't think of going off-road.
I picked up my red EX auto a few days ago. Mine was made in England, and my initial impression is that quality is on a par with the Japan-built CR-Vs. Fit and finish are perfect. No strange noises, or rattles. It doesn't pull to either side of the road, and the seat doesn't rock. I find the required steering effort to be a little on the heavy side, but this seems to be a fairly common comment. Road noise seems to me to be minimum. I know it's early to say it, but I expect my CR-V to outlast my '84 S10 Blazer.
I just put 205/75R15 tires on my 2002 CRV. It increased the tire diameter by an inch and I now have 8.6 inches of ground clearance which is more then the 8.1 inches of ground clearance it has with the stock tires.
The tires look much beefier, and performance has not been sacrificed.
daveghh - I did the same thing with with mine a few thousand miles ago, have been very happy with the upgrade. Might not be much extra ground clearance, but every little bit helps. I frequently find myself in deep snow and can tell a difference with the taller tires. On-road handling still feels the same, and MPG's didn't drop. You just have to add 5% to your indicated speed and mileage when calculating MPG.
Mainemax, I put a set of Michelin Arctic Alpines on my 02. They actually handle better then the OEM tires, and they are quiet. I would have expected the opposite for these tires because they are made for winter conditions. I should take a picture of my CRV next to another one with the stock size tires on...
With the success of Honda Civic hybrid, Honda Insight and Toyota Prius, I don't know why any automobile manufacturers would make a hybrid SUV. Is Honda going to make a hybird version of CR-V and the Highlander from Toyota? I definitely will consider it (for a reasonable price) if they have one with over 40 mpg. I would like to see a huge saving on my annual gas, maybe in half. As you know, we are paying yesterday's premium gas price for today's regular. Beside the car safety and emission control, is the government has any plan to promote a better fuel economy vehicles?
I don't think this is going happen to US. Maybe we will get the CR-V SE before the next redesigned one. We always get the cheap and ugly looking cars. They are just cheap to make and the consumers are just willing to pay for what they need. Just look at most domestic cars, SUVs, vans and trucks with unpainted side mirrors & door handles, radio antenna on the side fender, plus I hate those 3 in 1 (or all in one) red tail lights. It is very different to tell whether the car in front of me is making a turn or just hitting a brake.
If the tecnology is spread over a greater volume, then this new hybrid technology should become less expensive for car buyers. Hence, overall ROI should be less. I think it will garner great acceptance only when a manufacturer is willing to bet an entire volume product line on the technology. What I mean is offering the Civic with only hybrid technology - no IC engine alone. That would take tremendous intestinal fortitude by a company to be willing to bet one of their best product lines on it.
Personally, I don't forsee the federal government pushing for greater fuel economy requirements. IIRC an article recently noted that average fuel economy in the US has gone down in the past few years. But our little world of cheap fuel may not always be that way.
...that's exactly what I was alluding to. A recent article in Car & Driver caught my attention. Basically it said that we should look at the oil reserves in the Middle East from the opposite direction. We don't need them, they need us. If we had a technology that reduced dependence on oil then there is little need for the world to worry about potential threats of embargoes from the middle east. The middle east and other oil exporting nations would have to ask the rest of the world to buy their one product. The article noted that without oil exports, what other exports do these nations have to offer?
Now imagine 25-30% mpg gains from the use of hybrid powerplants. It would take years to fully deploy, but we are looking a scenario of a similar reduction in oil use within a few years. The downside includes the initial cost requirements and long term damage to the North American oil industry (and sub-industries) as well as certain changes in the geo-political landscape.
I heard more on hybird Honda CR-V. It looks like a hybird Toyota Highlander on the Toyota web site (go to future vehicles). I really don't know the rest.
If we go to war with Iraq the price of gas will increase a little bit, not that much though. Remember last summer when Iraq didn't give any oil to OPEC for a month to protest the U.S. it didn't affect our oil prices. Currently, according to the DOE, we are only getting 10% of our oil from Iraq and they sit on the second largest reserve in the world.
When we replace the regime we will surely get more oil from Iraq and some say the price of oil per barrel could drop from $30+ to $10-13.
I met Scott Ritter (former head UN inspector, and American Republican) the Monday before the Senate and House voted on the Iraq resolution and since then I have become more skeptical of why Bush wants to remove Saddam.
Comments
I have a 4WD 5sp 02 CRV. The shift feels wonderful. It is precise, smooth and effortless. The only problem is that a sixth gear is needed to reduce the rpm at high speeds. Currently at 5th gear, CRV revs at 3000 rpm at 60 mph, 3600 rpm at 75 mph. Unfortunately my CRV operates mostly at 75 mph which is one of the reasons I can only get 24-25 mpg.
I would only consider the VW TDI as a second vehicle to the CRV.
I've got as high as about 32 mpg with my 99 EX auto. Have also pulled a large 17 foot boat with 90 hp motor with it, but was against a stiff breeze of about 30mph and had to stay in 3rd, so it was a little touchy.
Currently in Canada diesel is about 50 cents a gallon cheaper than gas ( gas is heavily taxed here
The picture above shows the rear view aid. Looking at it:
-On the bottom left, you can make out part of the spare tire.
-On the left edge you can make out the pole and its base that's located 4 ft behind the spare tire.(see below)
-On the bottom edge you can make out the snow about 4 ft behind the vehicle on the ground.
-Typically, backing into a spot with a car behind me. I find that I can get to within 2 feet before the leading edge of it's hood dissappears. The taller the hood, the closer I can get before it becomes a blind spot.
Here are a few pics looking back through the inside of our CRV. I drove to my wife's work location, only 3 miles from our house. (They're both on base) The inside pic makes the view a little more distorted than it actually is. I tried using the flash, but that pic was worse than this one without the flash.
The aid itself is only 6x8" and doesn't block much of the rear window. I placed it offset to the driver's side, so that I could still see it through the back. Moving it too close to center brings the spare tire in too much. My wife is only 5' 2", so putting it down and to the right into the recessed portion of the rear window made it hard to see through the rear view mirror. Otherwise that would be a good place for it, and the spare tire would entirely dissappear.
Hope this helps a few of you out there.
The body styling of the Sorento
The use of interior space of a CRV
The reliability of the CRV
The Accord's V6
The fold down front passenger seat of the Vue
The gas tank of the Suburban
The side head bags of the Vue
The third seat configuration of a Tarsus station wagon
;-)
I have a question about tire rotation on my 2002 CRV. I want to rotate and include the spare haven't had any spares but donut tires for many years from what I remember when I rotated with a spare tire you took the front left off and used that as the spare and put the present spare on the right rear. Is that correct or does Honda have another recommendation? Nothing in the owners manual on this but from what I read in your posts you have a pretty good knowledge on these vehicles.Thanks.
GGy - What I like about my 02 5-spd LX: short throw, generally smooth action (except when engine is cold, plus some recurrent clunkiness going into 3d, at least on mine). What I don't like: not as easy (yet) to achieve very fast, seamless shifts for lane acceleration, and no "6th" gear for higher rpms.
Some of what I'm experiencing with shifts is probably that I'm still adjusting to the CR-V feel -- my Suzuki is an entirely different rhythm and feel manual (Suzuki). Still, after 3 months, I'm beginning to wonder about why I'm having trouble gauging quickly where the "sweet spot" is for each gear, esp. 3d.
I agree with someone else who posted gas mileage: My 02 5-spd probably does get better than 25 mpg at 60 - 65 mph, but since my car normally travels at 70+ on highway, the best I can get is 25 - 26 highway, 23 - 24 town. Mountain driving gets me 26 - 28 mpg even at high speeds (pressure difference). I keep my tires at 32 - 35 psi, so I can't blame low tire pressure for the differences.
My impression is that the current and near future passenger diesel engines are as clean if not cleaner than the gasoline engines. Yes the EPA recently released a "report" stating that they SUSPECT diesel exhaust to be carcinogenic. I would expect all petroleum products to be harmful. I would like to see more scientific studies done of the complete cycle emissions of gasoline, petro-diesel, and B100 usage. Some studies suggest that the tailpipe emissions of newer gasoline powered cars are cleaner than recent diesel engined vehicles. A snapshot does not tell the whole story. Gas exhaust purportedly has smaller particulate matter that can penetrate deeper into the lungs and can float for several hundred miles where as diesel particulate is larger and usually falls to the ground within a few hundred feet. Particulate traps are being added to diesel engined cars. NOX is also being addressed. B100 eliminates something like 90% of the carcinogenic aspect of petro-diesel. "noisy, extremely dirty, smelly diesel engines" is an image of the past and of older technolgy on trucks and buses. New regs. passed 01OCT02 for diesel engines and low sulfur regs. in 2006 will both go a long ways to improving petro-diesel emissions. 30% or so of new cars sold in Europe are diesels. Higher gasoline prices and concern for greenhouse emissions are the driving factors. Batteries are not environmentally benign. I expect near term future diesel engines will be cleaner than gasoline engines at the tailpipe and over the complete cycle from fuel manufacture, fueling, and usage. What is doing more harm to me and the environment? I invite comment. I'm trying to determine which power plant I'd like in my next car/SUV/wagon.
I was watching TLC (or was it Discovery?) where they basically said that we're like the inhabitants of Easter Island, but on a much larger scale. By the time the Europeans discovered them, they had used up all of the resources on the island and resorted to cannibalism. We're doing the same thing and the "end" is nearer than what most people suspect and hope. The piece was a bit too pessimistic, but nonetheless true.
The gearing is low, which is great for around town driving. I do find myself searching for a 6th gear when speeds hit 70+ mph. I've been happy with it over the last 60K miles and think it's contributed to a higher average gas mileage. I tend to get 28mpg around town and as high as 30mpg on the highway. Though, expect less if you typically drive 75+ mph.
The only time I wished I had an automatic was off-road, trying to climb a steep dirt trail. The CR-V had all the traction I needed, but first gear wasn't low enough and I kept stalling. The auto tranny would have given some slippage and I would have got up the hill. But that's only happened once in 60K miles.
Recently there's been increased concern that geologists have erred in "peak" of oil; that is time when we reach the midpoint of our oil supplies. New estimates place peak at end of this decade instead of 40 years down the road. After peak, oil prices will only go up. Now that's scary.
Fuel cell vehicles will be mass produced in the next 1 to 2 years. Honda has a FC ?? in test markets already, and has announced production plans for 04 as I recall. Promise of fuel cell technology was to be able to provide home energy generation plants at reasonable cost.
No, but I stayed at a Best Western.....
Inkie - Off the top of my head, I do not recall the exact pattern for a five tire rotation. You might try tirerack.com or another retailer. They often have consumer information like that.
01r1 - I think what you needed was a low gear transfer case. The manual CR-V's first gear is the lowest I've ever seen. Although the automatic may give smoother power delivery, it is geared much higher.
The warranty of a Hyundai
The side curtain air bags from a Passat
The AWD of a Subaru
The VSC of a Toyota
The price of a Kia
And I'd replace the 3rd seat from the Expedition for that Taurus - it has twice the space.
-juice
Yes, I agree, if you do much of that, you'll need something with a low range.
Actually, petroleum is from plants. Sinclair oil created the myth with their dinosaur commercials (which I read about in ANCIENT texts! ;-) Moonkat will verify this as he is known to stay at Best Westerns! :-)
tidester, host
* Retractable 3rd seat from Pilot or MDX
* One piece lift gate (minivan type) with power rear window from 4Runner (Don't like those two-pieces type from Land Cruiser/LX470, BMW X5 and others side-swing type from CR-V, RAV4 when it's different to load stuffs from one side.)
* Integrated tow hitch from Grand Cherokee
I already installed a backup-aid that displays the distance from the closes obstacle- but a visual confirmation would be safer.
I wonder if you can take it off or move it at will or is it permanemt- also -can it be affected by the rear defroster i.e. melt?
How much? any web store?
The newer, cleaner, quieter(?) diesel engines for passenger-type vehicles sound interesting. I just haven't read anything that convinces me that they run cleaner or more efficiently than hydrogen or electric hybrid, so diesel just means another version of "petro-" to me.
I would love to find a well-equipped, efficient, powerful small SUV that uses a clean, recyclable power source, so I can say "Shove It" to Big Oil. That would be my dream carriage. Maybe in my lifetime?
I think Honda did a good job with the '02 CRV. The "Ideal SUV", I like Juice's (Post 9320) side curtain air bag of the Passat, Varmit's (Post 9319) Accord driver's seat, and for fun (Post 9323) Lok888's power rear window from 4Runner. On a realist note (rare for me) I know a man who has a 4x4 Suburban. He believes that the bigger vehicle is safer than a CRV. I would like Honda to know that I would be willing to pay for the side curtain air bag to help protect my passengers and me from these larger vehicles.
One of the things I like most about the CRV is the amount of backseat passenger legroom. I am 6'2'' and in many vehicles when someone is behind me I have to slide my seat up for them to have room for their legs. The CRV has the backseat legroom of a ML320 (I like this vehicle but I really cannot afford it). The legroom issure is very important to me. I want my passengers to be comfortable.
On fuel, only when the price of oil goes up will alternative fuels be an option. I am surprise that England has not done more with alternative forms of energy with gas costing so much there. I realize thier gas price is mostly tax. IMO in the US gas is cheap. That is why we have the Suburban and Expeditions. Please, Suburban and Expeditions people don't flame me. I have a friend with a big family and a camper trailer, this vehicle is perfect for his family. Again IMO, when the cost for a fill-up is $200-250 vs. $60-80 buying patterns will change.
Honda has a 5-dr Civic with a CTDi in Europe. The European Accord is also getting a diesel engine. Any word on when the States will see a gas/electric hybrid CR-V or any diesel engine choices? Juice, Tidester, Varmit, Bueler, anyone?
'02 CR-V EX first two tanks 23 and 21 MPG.
I wonder if the new 4Runner still has that power window. I agree it's a nifty feature. I like lift gates because they give you shelter in the rain.
And it is neat that Jeep found a way to integrate a tow hitch with a unibody frame.
At least the big SUVs are now getting bumpers compatible with cars. That should be a requirement, though.
How about adding "Insight EPA mileage figures" to our wish list? :-)
-juice
Here in NA, they figure cars will go from ICE, to hybrid, to fuel cells.
BTW, I have read of no real plans to make a hybrid CR-V. The only thing I've seen from Honda has released was over a year ago and stated that they would build a hybrid version of the Pilot, CR-V, or Accord depending on how well the hybrid Civic sells.
Think about it carefully - you would probably never recover your investment, since fuel costs aren't that high to begin with. You might be stuck with a huge battery swap bill in 3-5 years, who knows, that could kill whatever fuel savings you had. Would you really risk it?
Let's do a survey, would you pay roughly $26 grand for a hybrid CR-V EX 5 speed? How much would you really be willing to pay?
I say if the feds had a $3000 tax refund instead of a tax deduction, it would totally be worth it for the extra range you'd get.
Would you just get a Pilot instead for that price? I imagine Civic hybrid buyers are in a similar situation if they look at Accords.
-juice
If I had to replace the '92 Civic VX (37+ MPG) next year I'd be torn between getting another CR-V, Subaru Legacy wagon, Outback wagon, Forester, and the VW Jetta wagon TDI. Good to have choices. If only we had more engine choices. 2006?
The TDI is about $1300 than the gas 2.0l. To me that seems like a reasonable amount of money to double your range. Even then the 2.0 probably outsells it 10 to 1 (just my guess).
So would a $4000 premium on a CR-V would be a mighty tough sell. Depending on your tax bracket, the most you could get from a $3000 deduction, in a 40% tax bracket, is $1200, so it would still cost you $2800 out of pocket.
The lean burn VX didn't sell that well, did it? Remember the CRX HF? No? I bet you remember the Si. :-)
Besides lean burn, there is direct injection. I'd like to see that become widespread.
-juice
I don't know about Harmonys, but Yoko Avid Tourings are noisy on anything but smooth pavement. A better choice for CRV would be Yoko Aegis LS4s. Aggressive tread pattern, though surprisingly quiet and comfortable tire at Avid Touring prices. Also very good in snow and wet; more of an off-road tire. I found the Tourings to be excellent handling - sharper turn-in than Energy MXV4 but thin tread left me feeling they are not good for heavier vehicle. And don't think of going off-road.
Honda sold 3788 Insights in 2000, 4726 in 2001. That's not even a dent.
Civic hybrid should sell far more, but still, they sold 331,780 non-hybrid Civics in 2001.
-juice
The tires look much beefier, and performance has not been sacrificed.
What brand, model?
I put a set of Michelin Arctic Alpines on my 02. They actually handle better then the OEM tires, and they are quiet. I would have expected the opposite for these tires because they are made for winter conditions. I should take a picture of my CRV next to another one with the stock size tires on...
Here is the rumored list of upcomming hybrid SUV's....
Ford Escape
Honda CRV
Honda Pilot
Lexus RX300
Personally, I don't forsee the federal government pushing for greater fuel economy requirements. IIRC an article recently noted that average fuel economy in the US has gone down in the past few years. But our little world of cheap fuel may not always be that way.
link
Steve, Host
Now imagine 25-30% mpg gains from the use of hybrid powerplants. It would take years to fully deploy, but we are looking a scenario of a similar reduction in oil use within a few years. The downside includes the initial cost requirements and long term damage to the North American oil industry (and sub-industries) as well as certain changes in the geo-political landscape.
Whoa - this is getting way too deep!!
When we replace the regime we will surely get more oil from Iraq and some say the price of oil per barrel could drop from $30+ to $10-13.
I met Scott Ritter (former head UN inspector, and American Republican) the Monday before the Senate and House voted on the Iraq resolution and since then I have become more skeptical of why Bush wants to remove Saddam.