Hello,
Earlier I posted a question to help me sort out the small SUV's. I've
decided I like the CRV best.

Now I'm comparing a 1997 and a 2000 CR-V. Both have about 88,000 miles, both
have leather interior and similar equipment.
The 2000 is FWD, the 97 is AWD. This will be my first Honda other than
motorcycles.
Price is about the same but with a bit of dickering the 97 could be 1,000
less. Roughly 9,000 and 8,000.

What I really don't know is if there is a major body style - interior
space - mechanical difference between the two. It seems that most lists show
98 through 2003 as being the same.

I've driven a 2001 and liked it but have not been in a 97 - I'm looking at
this one tomorrow.
Any thoughts about these two? Presuming similar condition and previous care?

I live in Denver and have not owned AWD before. FWD has been fine so far, so
I don't think that is a major issue for me - or should it be?

Thanks for any thoughts!

Peter

 

The major difference is the engine output...146 hp for the 2000 and 128 hp
for the 1997. Other than that very little difference.



"Peter Crowl" <pcrowl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CvZOb.17931$1e.8271@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> Hello,
> Earlier I posted a question to help me sort out the small SUV's. I've
> decided I like the CRV best.
>
> Now I'm comparing a 1997 and a 2000 CR-V. Both have about 88,000 miles,
both
> have leather interior and similar equipment.
> The 2000 is FWD, the 97 is AWD. This will be my first Honda other than
> motorcycles.
> Price is about the same but with a bit of dickering the 97 could be 1,000
> less. Roughly 9,000 and 8,000.
>
> What I really don't know is if there is a major body style - interior
> space - mechanical difference between the two. It seems that most lists
show
> 98 through 2003 as being the same.
>
> I've driven a 2001 and liked it but have not been in a 97 - I'm looking at
> this one tomorrow.
> Any thoughts about these two? Presuming similar condition and previous
care?
>
> I live in Denver and have not owned AWD before. FWD has been fine so far,
so
> I don't think that is a major issue for me - or should it be?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts!
>
> Peter
>
>
>

 

The major difference is the engine output...146 hp for the 2000 and 128 hp
for the 1997. Other than that very little difference.



"Peter Crowl" <pcrowl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CvZOb.17931$1e.8271@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> Hello,
> Earlier I posted a question to help me sort out the small SUV's. I've
> decided I like the CRV best.
>
> Now I'm comparing a 1997 and a 2000 CR-V. Both have about 88,000 miles,
both
> have leather interior and similar equipment.
> The 2000 is FWD, the 97 is AWD. This will be my first Honda other than
> motorcycles.
> Price is about the same but with a bit of dickering the 97 could be 1,000
> less. Roughly 9,000 and 8,000.
>
> What I really don't know is if there is a major body style - interior
> space - mechanical difference between the two. It seems that most lists
show
> 98 through 2003 as being the same.
>
> I've driven a 2001 and liked it but have not been in a 97 - I'm looking at
> this one tomorrow.
> Any thoughts about these two? Presuming similar condition and previous
care?
>
> I live in Denver and have not owned AWD before. FWD has been fine so far,
so
> I don't think that is a major issue for me - or should it be?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts!
>
> Peter
>
>
>

 

The major difference is the engine output...146 hp for the 2000 and 128 hp
for the 1997. Other than that very little difference.



"Peter Crowl" <pcrowl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CvZOb.17931$1e.8271@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> Hello,
> Earlier I posted a question to help me sort out the small SUV's. I've
> decided I like the CRV best.
>
> Now I'm comparing a 1997 and a 2000 CR-V. Both have about 88,000 miles,
both
> have leather interior and similar equipment.
> The 2000 is FWD, the 97 is AWD. This will be my first Honda other than
> motorcycles.
> Price is about the same but with a bit of dickering the 97 could be 1,000
> less. Roughly 9,000 and 8,000.
>
> What I really don't know is if there is a major body style - interior
> space - mechanical difference between the two. It seems that most lists
show
> 98 through 2003 as being the same.
>
> I've driven a 2001 and liked it but have not been in a 97 - I'm looking at
> this one tomorrow.
> Any thoughts about these two? Presuming similar condition and previous
care?
>
> I live in Denver and have not owned AWD before. FWD has been fine so far,
so
> I don't think that is a major issue for me - or should it be?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts!
>
> Peter
>
>
>

 

The major difference is the engine output...146 hp for the 2000 and 128 hp
for the 1997. Other than that very little difference.



"Peter Crowl" <pcrowl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CvZOb.17931$1e.8271@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> Hello,
> Earlier I posted a question to help me sort out the small SUV's. I've
> decided I like the CRV best.
>
> Now I'm comparing a 1997 and a 2000 CR-V. Both have about 88,000 miles,
both
> have leather interior and similar equipment.
> The 2000 is FWD, the 97 is AWD. This will be my first Honda other than
> motorcycles.
> Price is about the same but with a bit of dickering the 97 could be 1,000
> less. Roughly 9,000 and 8,000.
>
> What I really don't know is if there is a major body style - interior
> space - mechanical difference between the two. It seems that most lists
show
> 98 through 2003 as being the same.
>
> I've driven a 2001 and liked it but have not been in a 97 - I'm looking at
> this one tomorrow.
> Any thoughts about these two? Presuming similar condition and previous
care?
>
> I live in Denver and have not owned AWD before. FWD has been fine so far,
so
> I don't think that is a major issue for me - or should it be?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts!
>
> Peter
>
>
>

 

Peter Crowl wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Earlier I posted a question to help me sort out the small SUV's. I've
> decided I like the CRV best.
>
> Now I'm comparing a 1997 and a 2000 CR-V. Both have about 88,000 miles, both
> have leather interior and similar equipment.
> The 2000 is FWD, the 97 is AWD. This will be my first Honda other than
> motorcycles.
> Price is about the same but with a bit of dickering the 97 could be 1,000
> less. Roughly 9,000 and 8,000.
>
> What I really don't know is if there is a major body style - interior
> space - mechanical difference between the two. It seems that most lists show
> 98 through 2003 as being the same.
>
> I've driven a 2001 and liked it but have not been in a 97 - I'm looking at
> this one tomorrow.
> Any thoughts about these two? Presuming similar condition and previous care?
>
> I live in Denver and have not owned AWD before. FWD has been fine so far, so
> I don't think that is a major issue for me - or should it be?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts!
>
> Peter

===============

Peter,

I beleive the 2000 is a bit more powerful, but the AWD is VERY worthwile
in Denver. In a blizzard, you'll be the one pulling your buddies out of
the snowbanks, not the other way around. :-) Ihe interior (volume) is
identical, except for a few tiny updates (I think the folding elbowrest
is adjustable, small stuff like that)

With the right tires your '97 would be unstoppable in most snow. With
the factory M&S tires, you're stuck. Stomp and steer is great for
'avoidance', and that's what you should practice because your stopping
distance on dry pavement can be MUCH longer.

Test the ABS on snow before you buy. Somebody almost sold me a Honda
with the ABS light burnt out (for a $$$ reason)

You can test the AWD on an icy parking lot: Drive 15 mph, crank the
steering as if you're going to turn. Yank the park brake to lock the
rear wheels and you should go into a four-wheel sideways skid. (the
front wheels should assume the same speed as the rear wheels) If it's a
manual tranny, the engine will also stall unless you push in the clutch.

Let us know.

'Curly'

=============

 

Peter Crowl wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Earlier I posted a question to help me sort out the small SUV's. I've
> decided I like the CRV best.
>
> Now I'm comparing a 1997 and a 2000 CR-V. Both have about 88,000 miles, both
> have leather interior and similar equipment.
> The 2000 is FWD, the 97 is AWD. This will be my first Honda other than
> motorcycles.
> Price is about the same but with a bit of dickering the 97 could be 1,000
> less. Roughly 9,000 and 8,000.
>
> What I really don't know is if there is a major body style - interior
> space - mechanical difference between the two. It seems that most lists show
> 98 through 2003 as being the same.
>
> I've driven a 2001 and liked it but have not been in a 97 - I'm looking at
> this one tomorrow.
> Any thoughts about these two? Presuming similar condition and previous care?
>
> I live in Denver and have not owned AWD before. FWD has been fine so far, so
> I don't think that is a major issue for me - or should it be?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts!
>
> Peter

===============

Peter,

I beleive the 2000 is a bit more powerful, but the AWD is VERY worthwile
in Denver. In a blizzard, you'll be the one pulling your buddies out of
the snowbanks, not the other way around. :-) Ihe interior (volume) is
identical, except for a few tiny updates (I think the folding elbowrest
is adjustable, small stuff like that)

With the right tires your '97 would be unstoppable in most snow. With
the factory M&S tires, you're stuck. Stomp and steer is great for
'avoidance', and that's what you should practice because your stopping
distance on dry pavement can be MUCH longer.

Test the ABS on snow before you buy. Somebody almost sold me a Honda
with the ABS light burnt out (for a $$$ reason)

You can test the AWD on an icy parking lot: Drive 15 mph, crank the
steering as if you're going to turn. Yank the park brake to lock the
rear wheels and you should go into a four-wheel sideways skid. (the
front wheels should assume the same speed as the rear wheels) If it's a
manual tranny, the engine will also stall unless you push in the clutch.

Let us know.

'Curly'

=============

 

Peter Crowl wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Earlier I posted a question to help me sort out the small SUV's. I've
> decided I like the CRV best.
>
> Now I'm comparing a 1997 and a 2000 CR-V. Both have about 88,000 miles, both
> have leather interior and similar equipment.
> The 2000 is FWD, the 97 is AWD. This will be my first Honda other than
> motorcycles.
> Price is about the same but with a bit of dickering the 97 could be 1,000
> less. Roughly 9,000 and 8,000.
>
> What I really don't know is if there is a major body style - interior
> space - mechanical difference between the two. It seems that most lists show
> 98 through 2003 as being the same.
>
> I've driven a 2001 and liked it but have not been in a 97 - I'm looking at
> this one tomorrow.
> Any thoughts about these two? Presuming similar condition and previous care?
>
> I live in Denver and have not owned AWD before. FWD has been fine so far, so
> I don't think that is a major issue for me - or should it be?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts!
>
> Peter

===============

Peter,

I beleive the 2000 is a bit more powerful, but the AWD is VERY worthwile
in Denver. In a blizzard, you'll be the one pulling your buddies out of
the snowbanks, not the other way around. :-) Ihe interior (volume) is
identical, except for a few tiny updates (I think the folding elbowrest
is adjustable, small stuff like that)

With the right tires your '97 would be unstoppable in most snow. With
the factory M&S tires, you're stuck. Stomp and steer is great for
'avoidance', and that's what you should practice because your stopping
distance on dry pavement can be MUCH longer.

Test the ABS on snow before you buy. Somebody almost sold me a Honda
with the ABS light burnt out (for a $$$ reason)

You can test the AWD on an icy parking lot: Drive 15 mph, crank the
steering as if you're going to turn. Yank the park brake to lock the
rear wheels and you should go into a four-wheel sideways skid. (the
front wheels should assume the same speed as the rear wheels) If it's a
manual tranny, the engine will also stall unless you push in the clutch.

Let us know.

'Curly'

=============

 

Peter Crowl wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Earlier I posted a question to help me sort out the small SUV's. I've
> decided I like the CRV best.
>
> Now I'm comparing a 1997 and a 2000 CR-V. Both have about 88,000 miles, both
> have leather interior and similar equipment.
> The 2000 is FWD, the 97 is AWD. This will be my first Honda other than
> motorcycles.
> Price is about the same but with a bit of dickering the 97 could be 1,000
> less. Roughly 9,000 and 8,000.
>
> What I really don't know is if there is a major body style - interior
> space - mechanical difference between the two. It seems that most lists show
> 98 through 2003 as being the same.
>
> I've driven a 2001 and liked it but have not been in a 97 - I'm looking at
> this one tomorrow.
> Any thoughts about these two? Presuming similar condition and previous care?
>
> I live in Denver and have not owned AWD before. FWD has been fine so far, so
> I don't think that is a major issue for me - or should it be?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts!
>
> Peter

===============

Peter,

I beleive the 2000 is a bit more powerful, but the AWD is VERY worthwile
in Denver. In a blizzard, you'll be the one pulling your buddies out of
the snowbanks, not the other way around. :-) Ihe interior (volume) is
identical, except for a few tiny updates (I think the folding elbowrest
is adjustable, small stuff like that)

With the right tires your '97 would be unstoppable in most snow. With
the factory M&S tires, you're stuck. Stomp and steer is great for
'avoidance', and that's what you should practice because your stopping
distance on dry pavement can be MUCH longer.

Test the ABS on snow before you buy. Somebody almost sold me a Honda
with the ABS light burnt out (for a $$$ reason)

You can test the AWD on an icy parking lot: Drive 15 mph, crank the
steering as if you're going to turn. Yank the park brake to lock the
rear wheels and you should go into a four-wheel sideways skid. (the
front wheels should assume the same speed as the rear wheels) If it's a
manual tranny, the engine will also stall unless you push in the clutch.

Let us know.

'Curly'

=============

 

A FWD CR-V in Denver is pretty rare. It may have moved here. (That's
probably one of the reasons it's priced where it is.) I'm surprised you say
they are both leather and the 2k is leather + FWD. The only 1st gen CR-Vs
I'm aware of that came with leather from the factory are the 2k and '01
Special Editions. I believe all of the SEs were AWD. The 20 extra HP of the
2ks was a significant difference. 88k miles on a 97 is low. 88k miles on a
2k is high. Beyond that, the CR-V was pretty stable for its entire
production run and the differences year-to-year are small.

I don't know that you'll find AWD vs. FWD a deal maker in the Denver-area.
In the foothills or if you ski or otherwise travel in the mountains in
winter a lot, maybe. I could be wrong, though, as mine is an AWD. (But my
other vehicles are not and FWD has been fine here--'78 Ford Fiesta, '86
Integra, '88 Accord, '92 Vigor, '92 Civic Si, '95 Integra.) My RWD SLK230
with Z rated summer tires, however, is another matter entirely.)

You might want to go to http://www.hondasuv.com.

"Peter Crowl" <pcrowl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CvZOb.17931$1e.8271@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> Earlier I posted a question to help me sort out the small SUV's. I've
> decided I like the CRV best.
>
> Now I'm comparing a 1997 and a 2000 CR-V. Both have about 88,000 miles,
both
> have leather interior and similar equipment.
> The 2000 is FWD, the 97 is AWD. This will be my first Honda other than
> motorcycles.
> Price is about the same but with a bit of dickering the 97 could be 1,000
> less. Roughly 9,000 and 8,000.
>
> What I really don't know is if there is a major body style - interior
> space - mechanical difference between the two. It seems that most lists
show
> 98 through 2003 as being the same.
>
> I've driven a 2001 and liked it but have not been in a 97 - I'm looking at
> this one tomorrow.
> Any thoughts about these two? Presuming similar condition and previous
care?
>
> I live in Denver and have not owned AWD before. FWD has been fine so far,
so
> I don't think that is a major issue for me - or should it be?

 

A FWD CR-V in Denver is pretty rare. It may have moved here. (That's
probably one of the reasons it's priced where it is.) I'm surprised you say
they are both leather and the 2k is leather + FWD. The only 1st gen CR-Vs
I'm aware of that came with leather from the factory are the 2k and '01
Special Editions. I believe all of the SEs were AWD. The 20 extra HP of the
2ks was a significant difference. 88k miles on a 97 is low. 88k miles on a
2k is high. Beyond that, the CR-V was pretty stable for its entire
production run and the differences year-to-year are small.

I don't know that you'll find AWD vs. FWD a deal maker in the Denver-area.
In the foothills or if you ski or otherwise travel in the mountains in
winter a lot, maybe. I could be wrong, though, as mine is an AWD. (But my
other vehicles are not and FWD has been fine here--'78 Ford Fiesta, '86
Integra, '88 Accord, '92 Vigor, '92 Civic Si, '95 Integra.) My RWD SLK230
with Z rated summer tires, however, is another matter entirely.)

You might want to go to http://www.hondasuv.com.

"Peter Crowl" <pcrowl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CvZOb.17931$1e.8271@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> Earlier I posted a question to help me sort out the small SUV's. I've
> decided I like the CRV best.
>
> Now I'm comparing a 1997 and a 2000 CR-V. Both have about 88,000 miles,
both
> have leather interior and similar equipment.
> The 2000 is FWD, the 97 is AWD. This will be my first Honda other than
> motorcycles.
> Price is about the same but with a bit of dickering the 97 could be 1,000
> less. Roughly 9,000 and 8,000.
>
> What I really don't know is if there is a major body style - interior
> space - mechanical difference between the two. It seems that most lists
show
> 98 through 2003 as being the same.
>
> I've driven a 2001 and liked it but have not been in a 97 - I'm looking at
> this one tomorrow.
> Any thoughts about these two? Presuming similar condition and previous
care?
>
> I live in Denver and have not owned AWD before. FWD has been fine so far,
so
> I don't think that is a major issue for me - or should it be?

 

A FWD CR-V in Denver is pretty rare. It may have moved here. (That's
probably one of the reasons it's priced where it is.) I'm surprised you say
they are both leather and the 2k is leather + FWD. The only 1st gen CR-Vs
I'm aware of that came with leather from the factory are the 2k and '01
Special Editions. I believe all of the SEs were AWD. The 20 extra HP of the
2ks was a significant difference. 88k miles on a 97 is low. 88k miles on a
2k is high. Beyond that, the CR-V was pretty stable for its entire
production run and the differences year-to-year are small.

I don't know that you'll find AWD vs. FWD a deal maker in the Denver-area.
In the foothills or if you ski or otherwise travel in the mountains in
winter a lot, maybe. I could be wrong, though, as mine is an AWD. (But my
other vehicles are not and FWD has been fine here--'78 Ford Fiesta, '86
Integra, '88 Accord, '92 Vigor, '92 Civic Si, '95 Integra.) My RWD SLK230
with Z rated summer tires, however, is another matter entirely.)

You might want to go to http://www.hondasuv.com.

"Peter Crowl" <pcrowl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CvZOb.17931$1e.8271@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> Earlier I posted a question to help me sort out the small SUV's. I've
> decided I like the CRV best.
>
> Now I'm comparing a 1997 and a 2000 CR-V. Both have about 88,000 miles,
both
> have leather interior and similar equipment.
> The 2000 is FWD, the 97 is AWD. This will be my first Honda other than
> motorcycles.
> Price is about the same but with a bit of dickering the 97 could be 1,000
> less. Roughly 9,000 and 8,000.
>
> What I really don't know is if there is a major body style - interior
> space - mechanical difference between the two. It seems that most lists
show
> 98 through 2003 as being the same.
>
> I've driven a 2001 and liked it but have not been in a 97 - I'm looking at
> this one tomorrow.
> Any thoughts about these two? Presuming similar condition and previous
care?
>
> I live in Denver and have not owned AWD before. FWD has been fine so far,
so
> I don't think that is a major issue for me - or should it be?

 

A FWD CR-V in Denver is pretty rare. It may have moved here. (That's
probably one of the reasons it's priced where it is.) I'm surprised you say
they are both leather and the 2k is leather + FWD. The only 1st gen CR-Vs
I'm aware of that came with leather from the factory are the 2k and '01
Special Editions. I believe all of the SEs were AWD. The 20 extra HP of the
2ks was a significant difference. 88k miles on a 97 is low. 88k miles on a
2k is high. Beyond that, the CR-V was pretty stable for its entire
production run and the differences year-to-year are small.

I don't know that you'll find AWD vs. FWD a deal maker in the Denver-area.
In the foothills or if you ski or otherwise travel in the mountains in
winter a lot, maybe. I could be wrong, though, as mine is an AWD. (But my
other vehicles are not and FWD has been fine here--'78 Ford Fiesta, '86
Integra, '88 Accord, '92 Vigor, '92 Civic Si, '95 Integra.) My RWD SLK230
with Z rated summer tires, however, is another matter entirely.)

You might want to go to http://www.hondasuv.com.

"Peter Crowl" <pcrowl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CvZOb.17931$1e.8271@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> Earlier I posted a question to help me sort out the small SUV's. I've
> decided I like the CRV best.
>
> Now I'm comparing a 1997 and a 2000 CR-V. Both have about 88,000 miles,
both
> have leather interior and similar equipment.
> The 2000 is FWD, the 97 is AWD. This will be my first Honda other than
> motorcycles.
> Price is about the same but with a bit of dickering the 97 could be 1,000
> less. Roughly 9,000 and 8,000.
>
> What I really don't know is if there is a major body style - interior
> space - mechanical difference between the two. It seems that most lists
show
> 98 through 2003 as being the same.
>
> I've driven a 2001 and liked it but have not been in a 97 - I'm looking at
> this one tomorrow.
> Any thoughts about these two? Presuming similar condition and previous
care?
>
> I live in Denver and have not owned AWD before. FWD has been fine so far,
so
> I don't think that is a major issue for me - or should it be?

 

"Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko@mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in
message news:jF%Ob.19951$zj7.13276@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
> A FWD CR-V in Denver is pretty rare. It may have moved here.
Actually it's in Texas. So you're right...not common here.


I'm surprised you say they are both leather and the 2k is leather + FWD.
The only 1st gen CR-Vs
> I'm aware of that came with leather from the factory are the 2k and '01
> Special Editions. I believe all of the SEs were AWD. The 20 extra HP of
the
> 2ks was a significant difference.
The engine output difference is liable to be my deciding factor.


88k miles on a 97 is low. 88k miles on a 2k is high.
Indeed. 22k/year for 4 years if it's had 4 years in service.

Beyond that, the CR-V was pretty stable for its entire
> production run and the differences year-to-year are small.
>
> I don't know that you'll find AWD vs. FWD a deal maker in the Denver-area.
Deal maker or deal breaker :~)

> In the foothills or if you ski or otherwise travel in the mountains in
> winter a lot, maybe.
Don't ski, don't go into the hills in winter to speak of. My 96 Olds
Silhouette has always been good in snow...but my best at this time is my '71
Morris Minor. Those skinny tires dig in and bite!

I could be wrong, though, as mine is an AWD.
What about gas mileage for AWD vs FWD? I'd think that AWD would lower
mileage.

>
> You might want to go to http://www.hondasuv.com.

Did...Thanks!

Peter



>
> "Peter Crowl" <pcrowl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:CvZOb.17931$1e.8271@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> > Earlier I posted a question to help me sort out the small SUV's. I've
> > decided I like the CRV best.
> >
> > Now I'm comparing a 1997 and a 2000 CR-V. Both have about 88,000 miles,
> both
> > have leather interior and similar equipment.
> > The 2000 is FWD, the 97 is AWD. This will be my first Honda other than
> > motorcycles.
> > Price is about the same but with a bit of dickering the 97 could be
1,000
> > less. Roughly 9,000 and 8,000.
> >
> > What I really don't know is if there is a major body style - interior
> > space - mechanical difference between the two. It seems that most lists
> show
> > 98 through 2003 as being the same.
> >
> > I've driven a 2001 and liked it but have not been in a 97 - I'm looking
at
> > this one tomorrow.
> > Any thoughts about these two? Presuming similar condition and previous
> care?
> >
> > I live in Denver and have not owned AWD before. FWD has been fine so
far,
> so
> > I don't think that is a major issue for me - or should it be?
>
>

 

"Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko@mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in
message news:jF%Ob.19951$zj7.13276@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
> A FWD CR-V in Denver is pretty rare. It may have moved here.
Actually it's in Texas. So you're right...not common here.


I'm surprised you say they are both leather and the 2k is leather + FWD.
The only 1st gen CR-Vs
> I'm aware of that came with leather from the factory are the 2k and '01
> Special Editions. I believe all of the SEs were AWD. The 20 extra HP of
the
> 2ks was a significant difference.
The engine output difference is liable to be my deciding factor.


88k miles on a 97 is low. 88k miles on a 2k is high.
Indeed. 22k/year for 4 years if it's had 4 years in service.

Beyond that, the CR-V was pretty stable for its entire
> production run and the differences year-to-year are small.
>
> I don't know that you'll find AWD vs. FWD a deal maker in the Denver-area.
Deal maker or deal breaker :~)

> In the foothills or if you ski or otherwise travel in the mountains in
> winter a lot, maybe.
Don't ski, don't go into the hills in winter to speak of. My 96 Olds
Silhouette has always been good in snow...but my best at this time is my '71
Morris Minor. Those skinny tires dig in and bite!

I could be wrong, though, as mine is an AWD.
What about gas mileage for AWD vs FWD? I'd think that AWD would lower
mileage.

>
> You might want to go to http://www.hondasuv.com.

Did...Thanks!

Peter



>
> "Peter Crowl" <pcrowl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:CvZOb.17931$1e.8271@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> > Earlier I posted a question to help me sort out the small SUV's. I've
> > decided I like the CRV best.
> >
> > Now I'm comparing a 1997 and a 2000 CR-V. Both have about 88,000 miles,
> both
> > have leather interior and similar equipment.
> > The 2000 is FWD, the 97 is AWD. This will be my first Honda other than
> > motorcycles.
> > Price is about the same but with a bit of dickering the 97 could be
1,000
> > less. Roughly 9,000 and 8,000.
> >
> > What I really don't know is if there is a major body style - interior
> > space - mechanical difference between the two. It seems that most lists
> show
> > 98 through 2003 as being the same.
> >
> > I've driven a 2001 and liked it but have not been in a 97 - I'm looking
at
> > this one tomorrow.
> > Any thoughts about these two? Presuming similar condition and previous
> care?
> >
> > I live in Denver and have not owned AWD before. FWD has been fine so
far,
> so
> > I don't think that is a major issue for me - or should it be?
>
>