New CR-V solid but falls short

[range]

Looks like another lackluster product (Acura RL, Ridgeline) from Honda.

 

LINK

[Watchdevil]

Looks like another lackluster product (Acura RL, Ridgeline) from Honda.

 

LINK

 

Everything Honda builds is lackluster. They are also putting less quality and refinement in thier newer vehicles. The 2006 Civic Sedan certainly was a dissapoinment. Tinny sounding doors, cheap plastic everywhere in the iinterior and body roll and dip like you would not believe.

[06StangAwesomecar]

Looks like another lackluster product (Acura RL, Ridgeline) from Honda.

 

LINK

 

 

Anita and Paul Lienert comments actually shock me since they hate on domestics so much. I really dont consider them very credible.

 

I was a bit surprised by the five-speed when competitors like the Ford Edge are now offering six-speeds

If this was a domestic it would have taken half the page.

 

We both noticed the engine is noisy at higher speeds.

But its ok its a honda and it gets

But the fuel economy is not bad

If it where a domestic it would be underpowered, noisy, and poor fuel economy.

 

cheap plastic everywhere in the iinterior.

 

 

Come on Honda has the best made plastic in the industry, it feels so much better then the plastic in my 1977 Ford F-250

[ANTAUS]

$24K and NO V6? I think thats the main problem right there...

[bec5150]

Funny, Motor Trend, Car and Driver, and USAToday didn't seem to think it was lackluster.

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/11594...honda-cr-v.html

 

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suv/11..._2007_honda_crv

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/review...0-06-cr-v_x.htm

 

In fact, the article that was posted stated:

 

"For less than $24,000, that's a heck of a package" and "And the safety equipment is mighty impressive on a vehicle in this price class. Honda installs standard antilock brakes, side air bags, side curtains and stability control. That's pretty amazing."

 

In fact, the only thing they complained about was the lack of a six speed (the 5 speed gets damn near 30mpg), V-6 (go buy a Pilot if you need a six),vanity mirror lights (umm, OK), and the location of the shifter (wife HATES center consoles.)

 

What I don't get is that they said more positive than negative about the product, the final statement said "pretty amazing" product, and yet the headline says it falls short. The article didn't make much sense to me. It was inconsistent at the very least.

 

But there was a thread out here a while back that hacked up the 2007 Escape for alot of the same reasons and I didn't agree with that either. I like 'em both.

Edited December 21, 2006 by bec5150

[RAdams]

Gentlemen, I know this is a Ford forum but you've really outdone yourselves on this one: Citing an article that is generally positive, written by people who at least one of you say have little credibility, about a vehicle that is selling at a torrid pace... and the first post of the thread includes the word "lackluster". Seems to me there are a lot of carmakers that would LOVE a lackluster product like the new CR-V.

Edited December 21, 2006 by RAdams

[range]

bec, 2 of the 3 articles you posted were only Previews, where the authors did not even drive the vehicles, they just read a Honda Press Release.

 

The one article where they did drive the vehicle, they actually mentioned similar observations on the CRV as did the above article. (i.e coarse engine, cheap interior, unrefined elements, etc)

 

CRV's engine is "a tad coarse-voiced. "

 

Hondas used to be known for refined, 4 cylinder engines. But apparently that is not the case with the CRV.

 

"Fuel economy's not much better, though. CR-V's four-cylinder sacrifices a staggering 103 horsepower and 85 pounds-feet of torque to RAV4's optional V-6 in return for a measly 1 mile per gallon advantage on government tests. (RAV4's four-cylinder, same size and power as CR-V, gets only slightly better mileage.) "

 

"But it's tough not to pine for the Toyota V-6's additional power, at little sacrifice in mileage, when you're toting a load, driving in hilly terrain, passing on a two-lane or merging onto a brutally fast big road.

 

"had a slight buzz from the driver's door panel on coarse concrete"

 

"No power seats. No automatic climate control. No front-seat lumbar adjustment. No good place for the cellphone if the cup holders are in use. No auto-dimming mirror. No auto on-off headlights. No grocery bag hooks. No auxiliary sun visors (and the main visors don't slide, only swivel from front to side). "

 

"the six-disc CD changer whirred and buzzed loudly every time the vehicle was started. "

 

 

"and it's no surprise it doesn't blow the doors off the competition."

Edited December 21, 2006 by range

[Michael Reynolds]

As fugly as the CRV is, I would never take anything the Lineart's say to heart. Why were they comparing this thing to an Edge in the first place?

[RAdams]

2 of 3 articles have authors who HAD driven the car: USAToday notes the coarse voice and Motor Trend comments that it's quieter on the highway.

 

A niggling point, I know, but you guys really love to pull the rug out from under anything that doesn't agree with you and I like pointing out factual errors.

[bec5150]

I don't think I would take the statement "coarse engine" with any sort of credibility. It's an opinion. I have seen Motorweek and USAToday state that the engine is smooth so who are ya gonna believe? You are treating such a statement as gospel and I simply won't. I have the same exact engine in my 2003 and while I do admit it is set up to rev a bit, it's not coarse in the least. I do admit that any thought of pushing the accelerator down cues the trannsmission to grab a gear or two and you get over 3000RPM, but that's not coarseness. If you need to pass, you push it down and it will grab two gears and bang off shifts at 6500RPM and is quite smooth while doing that. But if a person's priority is performance, the CR-V ain't gonna be on their list. The engine is adequate, but that's about it. Worse yet, they don't have the manual transmission anymore. Now with the stick, the CR-V would scoot.

 

They compare the EPA rating of the CR-V to the RAV4 V-6. I will wait until the two go head to head in a real world setting before I state they get the same MPG. Anyone that has driven or read a real world experience of a Prius or any other car knows that, again, the EPA MPG ratings are a guidline, and a fairly inaccurate one at that. I find it hard to believe that in real world that these two engines are going to get the same MPG, at least in the city. Now on the highway, I could believe it.

 

Had a slight buzz from a door panel on concrete? That's a defect that an owner would return it to the dealer to have fixed, but it's not an item that was "designed in." Most road tests of new products would take an item like that and consider it a product of an early or preproduction model.

 

As far as all the other crap, the auto this and power that, most SUV's at the 20-25K pricepoint don't have all that stuff either. The lack of those items wouldn't keep me away as I simply hate "automatic" anything. Furthermore, Honda found that most people looking at these options are getting a Pilot anyway.

 

Now the sunvisors? Someone at Honda needs to be shot. That's the one thing on ours that sux. They really need to slide and if the new ones don't, that's a very big FUPA on Honda's part.

[range]

I don't think I would take the statement "coarse engine" with any sort of credibility. It's an opinion. I have seen Motorweek and USAToday state that the engine is smooth so who are ya gonna believe?

 

 

Actually, USAToday also used the word "coarse" to describe the CRV engine.

[FordDieselSteve]

I am a tech. at a honda dealer,I have worked on them for the past 13 years.The cr-v is a big miss for honda in my opinion.I recently got to drive my friends Escape,I think it is a much better car.Really the quallity of honda has been going downhill for a while now.I think both ford and gm build cars that are equal and most times better than the imports.but the fact is the people that buy hondas and toyotas will most likely buy them again without even looking at a domestic,just because they think they are buying a better quallity automobile

[bec5150]

I am a tech. at a honda dealer,I have worked on them for the past 13 years.The cr-v is a big miss for honda in my opinion.I recently got to drive my friends Escape,I think it is a much better car.Really the quallity of honda has been going downhill for a while now.I think both ford and gm build cars that are equal and most times better than the imports.but the fact is the people that buy hondas and toyotas will most likely buy them again without even looking at a domestic,just because they think they are buying a better quallity automobile

You'll get no argument from me. The only place where Ford and GM fall short is dealer support. The vehicles themselves are equal and, in build quality, actually better in some ways. My father-in-law's 1998 Olds Intrigue has over 195K miles and has only required a brake master cyl and an automatic climate control "computer." Take out the jazzy A/C computer and his total corrective maintainence has been less than $500. That's world class in ANY person's book. Furthermore, as per the owner's manual, he didn't do anything but change oil for the first 150K when he had to change the coolant. The transmission is a sealed unit and has NEVER been serviced.

 

But the dealership experience and customer satisfaction still lags behind. My brother's Ody blew a transmission at 99k, totally inexcusable. However, Honda replaced the transmission, no questions asked. Meanwhile, the local dealer's support of my Ranger has not been up to the level of the truck.

 

But yeah, our 2003 CR-V isn't even in the same league as my brother's 1991 Accord when it comes to quality but then nothing else on the market is either.

 

As far as the CR-V being a big miss, I dunno. The CR-V uses a 4cyl engine around the world and no other country really has a V-6 in this market. Is it really worth dropping in a V-6 just for the American market? Little known fact is that in some countries the CR-V does have a third row seat, albeit a damn small one.

 

Right now, if I was going to buy an SUV in this class, I probably would buy a Mazda Tribute with the 2.3L 4wd drivetrain. I would get the superior service from the Mazda dealer and still have a decent 4cyl. The reason we got the CR-V in 2003 was because the 4cyl in the Escape/Tribute was a boat anchor and I am not much into V-6's.

[630land]

Well, looks like a 'new greenhouse' on an SUV isn't all that. SOme on here demand that Ford make new windows on their trucks, but who really cares??

 

Honda CR-V has a greenhouse that is 'radically different', but makes the truck impractical and impairs visibility, just to please the 'it looks new' fans.

 

The 08 Escape changed what matters most, not whimsical style crap. I want to see it in a comparison test, and see if the 'old greenhouse look' Escape can kick sand in the CR-V, still!

 

 

"I probably would buy a Mazda Tribute with the 2.3L 4wd drivetrain. I would get the superior service from the Mazda dealer and still have a decent 4cyl." Meaning, an Escape. Also, not all Ford dealers have 'poor service'. I had good experiences, just that I saw them too many times. Also, many Mazda dealers are dualed with other brands, so it really isn't "Mazda Service", more like "Joe Schmo's New Cars".

Edited December 22, 2006 by 630land

[old_fairmont_wagon]

I would actually prefer the mariner as the L/M dealers and dealership experience around here is worlds better than the ford dealers. I also like the styling of the new mariner better as well.

 

I just wish Ford would have seen fit to use the 5AT from the fusion/Milan/Mazda6 4 banger in the new escape/mariner/tribute 4 banger models. Would have likely resulted in an improvement of 1mpg city and highway and made for better performance as well.

[taxman100]

My parents have/had (they no longer drive) a 2002 CRV, and I hated the vehicle - noisy, lousy ride, and the personality of a shoebox. Ironically, they bought it because of the seat height and the location of the dealer, and no other reason.

 

The current one has that horrible plastic lower body cladding that even the Mariner has (only it is chromed plastic on the Mariner). Let's get serious here - it is so obviously inappropriate for any vehicle taken off road that the look makes the driver look like a tool.

 

People love them, but that is because they of the reputation of Honda.

 

If this is considered a great deal at $24,000, then what is the Mariner at that price?

Edited December 22, 2006 by taxman100

[ebritt]

Right now, if I was going to buy an SUV in this class, I probably would buy a Mazda Tribute with the 2.3L 4wd drivetrain. I would get the superior service from the Mazda dealer and still have a decent 4cyl. The reason we got the CR-V in 2003 was because the 4cyl in the Escape/Tribute was a boat anchor and I am not much into V-6's.

Maybe, I just bought an 06 Mazda MPV and have to take it to Louisville or Nashville because they are the only two dealers around and both are 100 milles away. Mazda is pulling dealerships left and right. Edited December 24, 2006 by ebritt

[bec5150]

We have three Mazda dealers in the Dayton area. Two are part of a "superstore" and aren't all that impressive. The other is a MAZDASPEED approved dealership carrying Mazda only. It is one of the most impressive dealerships I have ever had the pleasure of going to PERIOD. They have many "stations", each with Dell computers to research Mazda products. They have a coffee bar and even a lift with an RX-8. The middle of the showroom has an elevated platform you can walk up to and see the "car of the day" so to speak. When we went there, they had a CX-7.

 

They are right across the street from the Honda dealership I bought off of and down the street from the Ford dealership that was recently bought out by the same guy that owns the Honda dealership. Then down the street is a Toyota dealership. I think with that many quality makes in the area they all have to compete on all levels of salesmanship and customer service. That might explain why all the dealerships are very impressive and my Honda service has been impressive as well.

 

Anyway, talking to the guys at the Mazda place, and even the service manager, I would have absolutely no issue buying a Mazda tomorrow. They are very impressive.

Edited December 24, 2006 by bec5150

[ebritt]

We have three Mazda dealers in the Dayton area. Two are part of a "superstore" and aren't all that impressive. The other is a MAZDASPEED approved dealership carrying Mazda only. It is one of the most impressive dealerships I have ever had the pleasure of going to PERIOD. They have many "stations", each with Dell computers to research Mazda products. They have a coffee bar and even a lift with an RX-8. The middle of the showroom has an elevated platform you can walk up to and see the "car of the day" so to speak. When we went there, they had a CX-7.

 

They are right across the street from the Honda dealership I bought off of and down the street from the Ford dealership that was recently bought out by the same guy that owns the Honda dealership. Then down the street is a Toyota dealership. I think with that many quality makes in the area they all have to compete on all levels of salesmanship and customer service. That might explain why all the dealerships are very impressive and my Honda service has been impressive as well.

 

Anyway, talking to the guys at the Mazda place, and even the service manager, I would have absolutely no issue buying a Mazda tomorrow. They are very impressive.

I would buy the Mazdaspeed 3 in a heartbeat but I have 3 new vehicles now and it will be awhile before I buy another. I also have 3 more in the drive that are paid for.