Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Honda CR-V Enough Power?
hi guys, i am losing my sleep over this... ! : ) so please help.
I am thinking of buying CRV 2.4L 4cyl but not convinced if it has enough power.
I also have honda accord 2001 2.4L 4cyl ( I drive soft, but i know its no sprinter car)
if i compare Accord 2.4L Cyl (Weight : 3200lb) with CRV 2.4L Cyl (Weight 3500LB), i am not convinced if it would carry the load well especially 3-5 years down the line.
I am worried that, i would be revving/slogging the engine down the years.
*****I would be convinced if i am informed of technical engine pros in CRV.*****
Any inputs would be greatly appreciated
Note : I have no towing needs.
I am thinking of buying CRV 2.4L 4cyl but not convinced if it has enough power.
I also have honda accord 2001 2.4L 4cyl ( I drive soft, but i know its no sprinter car)
if i compare Accord 2.4L Cyl (Weight : 3200lb) with CRV 2.4L Cyl (Weight 3500LB), i am not convinced if it would carry the load well especially 3-5 years down the line.
I am worried that, i would be revving/slogging the engine down the years.
*****I would be convinced if i am informed of technical engine pros in CRV.*****
Any inputs would be greatly appreciated
Note : I have no towing needs.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The 2001 Accord with 2.3L and manual trans will run circles around many V6 powered vehicles.
I have a 2005 CR-V with a similar 2.4 L engine (K24A1) as the current Gen of CR-V. Mine is stick, and if I am not careful with the throttle I chirp tires from start, as well as on 1-2 shifts. It goes from 0-60 in 8.2 seconds, and can outrun most V6 powered SUV's out there.
If you want the most power at the wheels with the least internal losses, go for a manual vehicle. Especially a Honda. Honda manuals are some of the slickest manuals, and have minimal power losses.
Honda engines are deisgned for high revs. Anyone who does not do that (mostly automatic drivers) are basically not using all of the potential of the engine. Honda engines are born out of F1 research and development, and the engines in F1 vehicles rev at 19,000+ RPM all day long.
Test drive the vehicle you are interested in and make your own conclusion.
How about 2009, i mean.... 2009 Accord and 2009 CRV have same engine or different?
If different, in what way. Not sure, which is more powerful. Looks like its Accord
This is what i see on Honda's website
Accord
Displacement (cc) 2354
Horsepower @ rpm (SAE net) 177 @ 6500
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) 161 @ 4300
Redline 6800
Compression Ratio 10.5 : 1
CRV
Displacement (cc) 2354
Horsepower @ rpm (SAE net) 166 @ 5800
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) 161 @ 4200
Compression Ratio 9.7:1
Basically, i am trying to figure out if addition vehicle weight of CR-V compared to Accord can still do its job
Btw, as per honda's website i dont think CRV is available in manual transmmission
anymore
If you look at the ratings you posted, Accord gets most of its power almost 1000 rpm higher than CR-V. Both list torque the same around the same revs.
Based on the numbers you posted, CR-V's engine is more livable in everyday situations, when you are not bounsing off the rev limiter on every shift (you will going 85 mph at redline in 3rd in CR-V). But, at the same time, one can shift into 5th at 35 mph and not stall out the engine. There was a post with torque curves, and I believe CR-V achieves 90% of its max torque around 2500 RPM.
Also, Accord engine comes in 2 flavors if I remember correctly. The LX does not have as much power as the EX. It is close in power to its sister, Acura TSX.
The lack of manual is what is making me keep the 05 longer. Elements are still available with sitck.
I find my '07 CR-V geared a little lower than I'd prefer. In around town driving, it accelerates quicker than I, or others who have driven it, expect. Even with an automatic it's not hard to chirp the tires. But, while the power when passing at hwy speeds is adequate, it lacks the reserve power I'd like (but, admittedly, seldom need).
I've also owned an Accord. From a performance standpoint, the Accord's engine is better matched to the car than is the CR-V's. If I sound disappointed, I'm not. I was looking for a comfortable vehicle with the practicality of a small SUV. If I was looking for a similar-sized SUV with power, I'd have probably bought a 6-cyl RAV4.
I dont need towing. I drive soft.
In my 2001 Accord, i hardly cross 3k rpm and still drive
decently with 4 adults on city roads/highways/merges.
Assuming Accord's engine (almost)= CRV's engine
Accord body weight (3100lb) <> CRV's 3500lb
So, i was concerned on the power. Will i be reving the engine
too often? or feeling slowed down over weight
I have been pulling my hair over CRV (2.3L) v/s RAV4 (v6).
CRV looks nicer. RAV4 is not, but has more practical features (3rd row seat, power, 4wd drive lock)
Overall, I think its coming down to 'how OFTEN we need extra power'
Test drives, dont help much as much as your valuables experiences on driving
over different terrain, load and speeds.
While I would buy the CR-V all over again, one shouldn't confuse it with a high-end SUV. The wheelbase is short, which can produce a bouncy ride on rough roads at freeway speeds (and Calif has a bunch). It's high SUV profile and (semi) off-road tires generate more noise than one typically gets from a passenger car when, again, driving at freeway speeds. Last, I opted for leather upholstery. It, like the floor carpets that will show wear in about a week, doesn't look like it's going to last as long as the car.
Egads, this all sounds pretty negative. I don't mean to be. I don't expect perfection from a car in the CR-V's price range. Honda has delivered a well-designed, practical, and reliable car that has exceeded my expectations in most areas. My overall gas mileage is 26+ mpg. Good luck.
I was thinking of EX-L (for leather seats). If i dont go for leather, i am OK with LX too.
As for the leather, I was foolish and got the cream interior even though I knew better. The seats already show dirt after only 6000 miles, which looks like wear. I think that they will clean ok but won't really know until I try it. I looked at mose of the small SUVs and really liked the overall feel of the CRV.
Regarding leather, you mean the color is the problem or the overall quality itself makes it look bad?
Thanks.
So, it will have more power.
I own Accord 2001 which also has 2.4L engine. Thats why i started this thread as i know that my car is just about ok weighing 3100lb carrying 4 passengers.
Current CR-V weighs 3500lb and i am curious to see how good will that be with 2.4L engine.
I hear from others reviews that it seems to have just about enough power. But, these are new CRV owners. I think that, 3.0L engine would be perfect.
With 2.4L engine, you would rev up when you need more power.
This site has the engine specs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CR-V
They won't sell 20,000 units. People buy it because it is fuel efficient.
The 05 CR-V I have, chirps tires on 1-2 shifts, any more power from the engine and will just smoke all 4 tires if someone is not careful with the accelerator.
Plus, putting V6 in it won' t make it tow more, since it is limited by the Civic frame that it is on.
Also, V6 will make it more front heavy.
The 3.5 L V6 simply won't fit the engine bay, meaniing honda will have to go back to the 2.7 V6 from the 90's Accords. However, the current 2.4 liter engine makes more power than the 2.7 V6.
However, my CR-V had what I characterize as a "hole" in the power curve from about 55 - 70 MPH. I had to be very careful when passing - prepare in advance and really floor the throttle in order to get enough power to pass. I lived with this as a characteristic of the model, and I liked it for around town use, where the gearing was fine.
Just my 2 cents worth, and I'm wondering if Gen 3 owners see a similar characteristic?
They don't have a V6 that is suitable in size, and it doesn't match their product mix.
Honda thrives and survives based on their limiting the options and manufacturing needs. Thus, one doesn't have a lot of choices when purchasing Honda's - the various trim levels have set option features that are the same for all of the models of that type. Only dealer add-ons are available to specialize a vehicle.
The same is true of their engine models and line ups. They have on a few engines, and that same engine is mated to similar transmissions (sometimes with different programming) on all their models. Thus they have a 3.5 for their Odessey and Ridgeline, and the 2.4 for Accord, CR-V, and Element, plus a smaller engine (1.8?) for the Civic line.
All this is done so that their manufacturing is kept simple, and their supply chain is kept lean and mean. It allows them to be competitive in price even though they are based in Japan, with higher costs for manufacturing. (and yes, I realize that many of their US models are assembled in America, but a lot of components are NOT made here).
That is as opposed to the Big 3, which tend to have a laundry list of options, meaning that each car is almost an individual model. I read somewhere that some of the Ford products have 278 different option combinations! That complicates the build process.
By using smaller engines, Honda has is the most fuel efficient of any of the big 6 auto makers.
I guess that would be a good parameter to compare and understand if CRV's weight affect it's performance
I have a 4cyl Accord and want to see how different it is from 2009 CRV
Chances are that you have rarely used Accord's full power potential. Most people never do. Accord V6 has been mostly for bragging rights, since most people are not buying it for speed. Otherwise, Accord V6 manual sedan would have still been alive.
Accord v6 has enough power which is not always used.
CRV is OK for normal day to day driving, but lacks enough power during acceleration 50mph+, over-taking, carrying heavy loads.
Does anyone disagree?
Accord v6 has enough power which is not always used.
CRV is OK for normal day to day driving, but lacks enough power during acceleration 50mph+, over-taking, carrying heavy loads.
Does anyone disagree?
I drive an 05 CR-V, which is essentially the same as the current, except for the body work.
I have no problem passing or getting up to speed.
It clocks about 8 seconds 0-60.
I drive manual.
Anyone interested in power should be asking their dealer for a manual version of whatever car they are buying.
[Borat Voice]Automatics are for girls! {/Borat Voice]
There's no getting around it, there are trade-offs with each choice. The higher, more comfortable seats and cargo hauling capability of the CR-V offset its (for me minor) deficiencies in acceleration and road handling. If I drove 800 miles per week I might feel different about it.
If enough people ask for it, and vote with their wallets by buying from the manufacturer that does offer manual, Honda will bring it back.
It is a completly different vehicle with the manual.
It is a completly different vehicle with the manual. "
I don't think Honda ever sold that many MT CR-V. Also, it got worse MPG than the automatic... IIRC.
1st Gen had about 5% manuals.
2nd Gen had about 3% manuals.
The EPA sticker said it was worse. In real life it is better. 26 city 30 highway.
People with the 6th gear conversion are pushing 33-35 mpg on the highway.
When you get the Helm manual (official Honda manual) you will see that there is a spacer for the 6th gear in the transmission. Honda uses the same transmission in Acura TSX, Civic Si, and Acura RSX Type S with 6 gears, but without the PTO in the rear.
It will cost about $300 in parts from Honda/Acura for the 6th gear conversion. If you have a transmission shop knowledgeable in Hondas, they will get it done in no time. The 6th gear position is where reverse is now, and reverse is floating.
I have not done mine, yet. People with Elements started this, since their final drive is even shorter than ours (4,000 RPM at 80 mph). There are a few people on HondaSUV.com who have done, or had someone do the conversion, on both Elements and CR-V's.
It will probably void the 5 year/60,000 mile powertrain warranty on the transmission. However, one could sucesfully argue that Original Equipment Manufacturer parts were used in the conversion, which complies with the warranty disclaimer.
Well, it can be argued that at highway speeds lower RPMs yield lower lifetime distance that a piston travels in the cylinder for given mileage, i.e. improvement on the original design. ;-)