CR-V - negatives?
 

SO considering a CR-V. Anything 'wrong' with them?

Re: CR-V - negatives?
 

Yeah they cost alot of $$$$$$$$$$. Just bought a 06 LX automatic love the
car, big difference from my 01 CR-V.


Tom


"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:WO5gf.2037$MU2.180822@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> SO considering a CR-V. Anything 'wrong' with them?

Re: CR-V - negatives?
 

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:WO5gf.2037$MU2.180822@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> SO considering a CR-V. Anything 'wrong' with them?

I found it to be quite uncomfortable to drive. Felt like I was jammed into
the steering wheel. I'm not particularly big (6'1", 220 lbs.), but thought
it had very little leg room. I didn't even leave the dealer parking lot
with it. We got in, I tried to adjust the seat to something comfortable,
couldn't, so we drove it around back and parked it. My sister has the 2001
model, which I think looks much nicer than the new body style, but it's
engine is pretty weak. I'd like to see the old body style with the new
engine.

As far as the vehicle itself, it's very highly rated, with excellent
reliability, and decent resale value. The RAV4 is generally considered to
have better handling, but overall the CR-V rates higher. The RAV4 is it's
only real direct competitor (that, and the Honda Element). Suzuki (Grand
Vitara pre-'06), Kia (Sportage), and Hyundai (Tucson) are all a step below,
and the Jeep Liberty is a totally different creature (great off-road,
somewhat rough on-road). The Ford Trio (Escape, Merc Mariner, Mazda
Tribute) aren't bad, but reliability isn't their strong suit, and I wouldn't
trust them to last as long as the CR-V. The BMW X3 is too expensive, and
just wasn't all that impressive.

The new '06 Suzuki Grand Vitara is a MUCH better vehicle than the '05 and
older version. Also, make sure you drive a Subaru Forester. These are the
two I'm considering if I go the SUV route (I may just get a FWD car and good
snow tires, although the 12+ inches of snow I got last Wednesday night has
me thinking again).

If you can wait, the CR-V is being redesigned for 2007. I've read it will
be getting the Civic Si engine (197 hp)

Re: CR-V - negatives?
 

iVtec / Vtec / not ?
Honda intake manifolds' throttle body retail @ > US$350 !
http://www.trademotion.com/partlocat...90&catalogid=0
http://www.hondaautomotiveparts.com/...catdisplay.jsp
this is a rip-off

Re: CR-V - negatives?
 

The 4 wheel drive system has a significant delay in sending power to the
rear wheels when the fronts loose traction (normally only the fronts drive).
However they changed the design of this system for 2006 and I don't know if
its improved or not. I'm waiting to see the new RAV-4 before making a
decision. Right now I'm leaning toward the Subaru.


"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:WO5gf.2037$MU2.180822@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> SO considering a CR-V. Anything 'wrong' with them?

Re: CR-V - negatives?
 

Ron Jones wrote:
>
> The 4 wheel drive system has a significant delay in sending power to the
> rear wheels when the fronts loose traction (normally only the fronts drive).
> However they changed the design of this system for 2006 and I don't know if
> its improved or not. I'm waiting to see the new RAV-4 before making a
> decision. Right now I'm leaning toward the Subaru.
>

----------------------------

I've driven generation 1's for the last few winters, and the AWD cuts in
before you even think of it, maybe a full spin of the front wheels . . .
but it is a 'transparent' system. You don't hear it, there's no visual
indicator, and you can't disable it. It just works. It is a bit
high-maintenance, needing a fluid change every 30,000 miles, but it
works like a dandy in deep snow or at icy intersections.

Resale value is phenomenal.

'Curly'

Re: CR-V - negatives?
 

That's good to hear. Do you have any experience in gravel? That's where I
heard there were most of the problems.


RJ

"'Curly Q. Links'" <motsco__@interbaun.com> wrote in message
news:438298A6.14D8DC5E@interbaun.com...
> Ron Jones wrote:
>>
>> The 4 wheel drive system has a significant delay in sending power to the
>> rear wheels when the fronts loose traction (normally only the fronts
>> drive).
>> However they changed the design of this system for 2006 and I don't know
>> if
>> its improved or not. I'm waiting to see the new RAV-4 before making a
>> decision. Right now I'm leaning toward the Subaru.
>>
>
> ----------------------------
>
> I've driven generation 1's for the last few winters, and the AWD cuts in
> before you even think of it, maybe a full spin of the front wheels . . .
> but it is a 'transparent' system. You don't hear it, there's no visual
> indicator, and you can't disable it. It just works. It is a bit
> high-maintenance, needing a fluid change every 30,000 miles, but it
> works like a dandy in deep snow or at icy intersections.
>
> Resale value is phenomenal.
>
> 'Curly'

Re: CR-V - negatives?
 

I own one CRV, and tried that in gravel in Malaysia hills and jungles. No
complaint. Slip, pick and go. Of course, since we do not have snow in this
part of the world, I cannot tell you if the response is similar.

Thanks.

"Ron Jones" <ronjones@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
news:J7Lgf.116091$Hs.62053@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..
> That's good to hear. Do you have any experience in gravel? That's where I
> heard there were most of the problems.
>
>
> RJ
>
> "'Curly Q. Links'" <motsco__@interbaun.com> wrote in message
> news:438298A6.14D8DC5E@interbaun.com...
>> Ron Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> The 4 wheel drive system has a significant delay in sending power to the
>>> rear wheels when the fronts loose traction (normally only the fronts
>>> drive).
>>> However they changed the design of this system for 2006 and I don't know
>>> if
>>> its improved or not. I'm waiting to see the new RAV-4 before making a
>>> decision. Right now I'm leaning toward the Subaru.
>>>
>>
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> I've driven generation 1's for the last few winters, and the AWD cuts in
>> before you even think of it, maybe a full spin of the front wheels . . .
>> but it is a 'transparent' system. You don't hear it, there's no visual
>> indicator, and you can't disable it. It just works. It is a bit
>> high-maintenance, needing a fluid change every 30,000 miles, but it
>> works like a dandy in deep snow or at icy intersections.
>>
>> Resale value is phenomenal.
>>
>> 'Curly'
>
>

Re: CR-V - negatives?
 

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> SO considering a CR-V. Anything 'wrong' with them?


Thank you all for your replies.