"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?
>
>

 

Since the AWD is really "real time" 4WD which almost always is just FWD,
about the only difference is a minor amount more drag in the drive train and
a minor amount more weight. I'd be shocked if two same year CR-Vs, one AWD
and the other FWD, in the same mostly on-dry-road service, saw a
statistically significant difference in gas mileage.

"Peter Crowl" <pcrowl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:q13Pb.20286$zj7.17275@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
> What about gas mileage for AWD vs FWD? I'd think that AWD would
lower
> mileage.

 

Since the AWD is really "real time" 4WD which almost always is just FWD,
about the only difference is a minor amount more drag in the drive train and
a minor amount more weight. I'd be shocked if two same year CR-Vs, one AWD
and the other FWD, in the same mostly on-dry-road service, saw a
statistically significant difference in gas mileage.

"Peter Crowl" <pcrowl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:q13Pb.20286$zj7.17275@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
> What about gas mileage for AWD vs FWD? I'd think that AWD would
lower
> mileage.

 

Since the AWD is really "real time" 4WD which almost always is just FWD,
about the only difference is a minor amount more drag in the drive train and
a minor amount more weight. I'd be shocked if two same year CR-Vs, one AWD
and the other FWD, in the same mostly on-dry-road service, saw a
statistically significant difference in gas mileage.

"Peter Crowl" <pcrowl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:q13Pb.20286$zj7.17275@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
> What about gas mileage for AWD vs FWD? I'd think that AWD would
lower
> mileage.

 

Since the AWD is really "real time" 4WD which almost always is just FWD,
about the only difference is a minor amount more drag in the drive train and
a minor amount more weight. I'd be shocked if two same year CR-Vs, one AWD
and the other FWD, in the same mostly on-dry-road service, saw a
statistically significant difference in gas mileage.

"Peter Crowl" <pcrowl@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:q13Pb.20286$zj7.17275@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
> What about gas mileage for AWD vs FWD? I'd think that AWD would
lower
> mileage.

 

If you find the AWD to FWD a push, more or less, one final factor may be
that the AWD is almost surely less reliable (by maybe a small margin but has
to be >0) and more expensive (when/if it becomes a problem, by probably a
wide margin) to repair. It has twice as many CVs and boots and has the fluid
coupling and a second differential and some more bearings and joints and so
on.

 

If you find the AWD to FWD a push, more or less, one final factor may be
that the AWD is almost surely less reliable (by maybe a small margin but has
to be >0) and more expensive (when/if it becomes a problem, by probably a
wide margin) to repair. It has twice as many CVs and boots and has the fluid
coupling and a second differential and some more bearings and joints and so
on.

 

If you find the AWD to FWD a push, more or less, one final factor may be
that the AWD is almost surely less reliable (by maybe a small margin but has
to be >0) and more expensive (when/if it becomes a problem, by probably a
wide margin) to repair. It has twice as many CVs and boots and has the fluid
coupling and a second differential and some more bearings and joints and so
on.

 

If you find the AWD to FWD a push, more or less, one final factor may be
that the AWD is almost surely less reliable (by maybe a small margin but has
to be >0) and more expensive (when/if it becomes a problem, by probably a
wide margin) to repair. It has twice as many CVs and boots and has the fluid
coupling and a second differential and some more bearings and joints and so
on.