Drove the new CR-V

[turbo200]

Though there might be 5 people here who will take my word for it, I decided I'd post about my experience with the new for 2007 CR-V, a car poised to make great volume gains for Honda. Let me preface this by saying I've only driven two direct competitors and those are the Rav4 and Escape, as of today. I would love to sample the Vue, since in terms of overall design polish I believe it's currently at or near the top of the heap.

In person, the new design is substantial and completely modern. There is good and bad to the design, but it mostly flows with Honda's new directive of engaging style as seen with the Civic. It retains the relatively humble and distinct Honda face of always, but the shape is completely new and attractive, compared to the CR-v of yore there is no comparison. The old CR-V is like a pair of jeans from the flea market compared to Diesel jeans of the new CR-V. It is very nice, and the design will be enough to motivate a lot of new buyers. The C-pillar looks elegant and flawed at the same time, the arch makes no sense since that isn't repeated anywhere else in the car, and the rear is so rectangular despite this element that seems to just be an afterthought. It does add some class and character though. I give the car an 8, and that is high, I'd give the Civic sedan a 6.5 mostly because of its horrid proportions and roofline....though both those translate into great efficiency for interior space.

The interior is great, and the quality is unbelieveable. The headliner is super fancy, as well as the leather of greater quality than what is in any Honda right now. The interior now has a design with character, that gives this vehicle a real impression of money. The car now looks like a $30,000 car that the top of the line EX-L will surely get close to. Interior quality blows anything in the segment away, severely. The Rav4, which I used to find acceptable though not great, gets trounced in a lot of areas here. Interior design is an 8, it's intuitive and really has luxurious presence and emotive character now.

The drive was another homerun for me. I got to take it through a makeshift slalom, and this car handled the aggressive turns I took with aplomb. The steering, ride, and acceleration are a paradigm shift from the old CR-V. I was also able to drive the Rav4 and Escape. I wish American automakers were up to par. Compared to the CR-V, Escape interior quality and design were beyond garbage; too bad, I really find a lot of charm in the classic Ford lines, even if its pretty staid looking. The drive was not invigorating, though someone said it was less prone to understeer than the CR-V, I think it's true. I just thought the combination of the engine, braking, and steering was vastly unrefined, though that should be expected considering Escape's age. Rav4 was a complete disappointment, though I didn't expect much from typically sloppy Toyota. The handling was uninvolved, and everything felt very disconnected. The CR-V seemed to beg to be pushed harder, all while being incredibly refined. Great road communication, very elegant feel to that feedback.

I went a lot crazier with detail than I expected to, but I'm sure you all predicted that

The bottom line is Honda expects this car to add 30k units to the CR-v's current volume. I see it taking share from cars as expressive and expensive as the Murano and on the lower end stealing from low end buyers of the X3 and RX maybe. With gas mileage being 30 on the highway for a 2wd model, this car has a lot to offer and has suddenly upped itself into a completely different segment, much like the Civic is now an in between car. It looks like Honda's plan to be a "premium" everyday car is working.

[pow]

Nice review... I'm assuming the Escape and RAV4 were four-bangers. I'm sure testing the V6 versions, something that CR-V doesn't offer, will be a different story. The 270-hp RAV4 Sport is pretty compelling, trashy interior and all.

[pow]

BTW, I haven't found much official CR-V info yet... I wasn't aware Honda released pics yet. Did they say how much horsepower it has?

[siegen]

Pics have been posted, full un-camo'd production model. I don't remember where though....

Honda will release full production information and specs september 1, although I'm sure there will be one or two mags that will blow it a couple days earlier (as is the usual occurance).

Edit: after looking around, I'm not so sure about the pics. They have the slightly camo'd ones and that might be it right now.

Good review. Sounds like the CR-V will be a very good vehicle. Not surprising considering that market is a big one right now.

Edited August 16, 2006 by siegen

[siegen]

Nope I was right. Here are pics. They aren't "released", just more spy shots, but fully un-camo'd.

Edited August 16, 2006 by siegen

[FAPTurbo]

Now how'd I miss those eyesores?

[thegriffon]

You couldn't believe they were real so your mind blanked them out.

[BigPontiac]

I'll be curious how the pricing comes out. I looked at an RDX at the Acura dealer tonight...$34K for the "base" model and $39K with the "tech" package. Seemed a little steep to me... But, the expensive one already had a sold sign on it.

[balthazar]

Having public drive events with no official pics being released?

{looks at pics....}

Why am I thinking of the summer movie that's released with no critic advance screenings?

That is one awful-looking SUV. The civic has grown on me, but this mess never will.

[regfootball]

did it catch fire?

[regfootball]

I'll be curious how the pricing comes out.  I looked at an RDX at the Acura dealer tonight...$34K for the "base" model and $39K with the "tech" package.  Seemed a little steep to me...  But, the expensive one already had a sold sign on it.

180862[/snapback]

no doubt some young professional woman, about 25-26, with a college degree, just got a good promotion (based on looks), named Jessica or something, is hip and trendy, shows plenty of leg and cleavage at work, and needs everything in their life to be just right. no problem for them dropping 38k on a small 4 cylinder SUV, as long as its the right brand and it will hold their shopping bags. I bet the leather is just right and is stitched 'just right'.

Ah, this is were the crossover segment is at. THE place to be. 40k for a 4 cylinder hatchback. Its why automakers are killing sedans to chase this segment. Another market surrendered to the imports and the US makes left behind.

'Jessica' would never by an AMURCHAN car. It would cramp her style. 5 years ago she would have bought a loaded Jetta.

Edited August 16, 2006 by regfootball

[siegen]

no doubt some young professional woman, about 25-26, with a college degree, just got a good promotion (based on looks), named Jessica or something, is hip and trendy, shows plenty of leg and cleavage at work, and needs everything in their life to be just right.  no problem for them dropping 38k on a small 4 cylinder SUV, as long as its the right brand and it will hold their shopping bags.  I bet the leather is just right and is stitched 'just right'.

Ah, this is were the crossover segment is at.  THE place to be.  40k for a 4 cylinder hatchback.  Its why automakers are killing sedans to chase this segment.  Another market surrendered to the imports and the US makes left behind.

'Jessica' would never by an AMURCHAN car.  It would cramp her style.  5 years ago she would have bought a loaded Jetta.

180900[/snapback]

I think this is part of the reason nobody can take you seriously

[Snate]

I think this is part of the reason nobody can take you seriously 

180924[/snapback]

The sad thing is he is probably correct.

[sciguy_0504]

TURBIE...nice to see you're still alive. I was getting worried there.

I'll politely disagree with your comments on the exterior. I bet the front end is patched up with the MCE in 2-3 years. I haven't seen the interior so I cannot say anything about that.

[turbo200]

BTW, I haven't found much official CR-V info yet... I wasn't aware Honda released pics yet. Did they say how much horsepower it has?

180776[/snapback]

It's going to have 166, same as the Accord. It felt sprightly, not powerful, but strong enough for what most people in the cities have to deal with. The gas mileage, I think, makes the package really strong.

It's also adding navigation system as an option and a 270 watt radio on that model. The leather and headliner are the fanciest materials I've ever touched.

[turbo200]

Nice review... I'm assuming the Escape and RAV4 were four-bangers. I'm sure testing the V6 versions, something that CR-V doesn't offer, will be a different story. The 270-hp RAV4 Sport is pretty compelling, trashy interior and all.

180775[/snapback]

you're right, the V6 would have been different. I think it only makes up about 10% of Rav sales, and Honda sees it as the prime competition, and of course they're so happy to be efficient rather than the most powerful. The way Honda sees it, you have to step up to Acura for more power, and a steeper price. The third row seat in the Rav is also useless and dangerous.

[turbo200]

TURBIE...nice to see you're still alive.  I was getting worried there.

I'll politely disagree with your comments on the exterior.  I bet the front end is patched up with the MCE in 2-3 years.  I haven't seen the interior so I cannot say anything about that.

181061[/snapback]

Thanks buddy. I don't think we disagree on the exterior though. I too don't like the front end. The pictures at TCC seem to capture the worst angles though, wait for some more pictures, I think it's a little better than what those pictures manage to capture.

[Drew Dowdell]

I think this is part of the reason nobody can take you seriously 

180924[/snapback]

is anything he said wrong?

it's a likely scenario.... not the only scenario.

[Drew Dowdell]

Nope I was right. Here are pics. They aren't "released", just more spy shots, but fully un-camo'd.

180786[/snapback]

did someone take the shrinky dinks out of the oven a bit early?

[siegen]

is anything he said wrong?

it's a likely scenario.... not the only scenario.

181123[/snapback]

You're joking, right?

It is completely full of sarcasm, stereotypes, and half-truths.

[balthazar]

Oh; in other words: just like far too many auto 'journalist' pieces....

[regfootball]

I think this is part of the reason nobody can take you seriously 

180924[/snapback]

what, you mean being right?

[regfootball]

The sad thing is he is probably correct.

180992[/snapback]

THANK YOU

[regfootball]

you're right, the V6 would have been different. I think it only makes up about 10% of Rav sales, and Honda sees it as the prime competition, and of course they're so happy to be efficient rather than the most powerful. The way Honda sees it, you have to step up to Acura for more power, and a steeper price. The third row seat in the Rav is also useless and dangerous.

181114[/snapback]

Maybe Honda doesn't want to offer a 16 mpg V6 (per C/D road test) in their CR-V like Toyota has in the RAV4.

[pow]

Maybe Honda doesn't want to offer a 16 mpg V6 (per C/D road test) in their CR-V like Toyota has in the RAV4.

181186[/snapback]

The RAV4 has the most fuel efficient V6 in its class...

But none of that matters, because it's not "being right."

[ocnblu]

empowah... check reg's source if you don't believe him. 16 mpg is pathetic real-world mileage for a cramped SUV. You must have been talking about the EPA ratings, which, as has been shown with the Prius, are meaningless for... certain makes.

[pow]

empowah... check reg's source if you don't believe him.  16 mpg is pathetic real-world mileage for a cramped SUV.  You must have been talking about the EPA ratings, which, as has been shown with the Prius, are meaningless for... certain makes.

181193[/snapback]

I can make ANY vehicle get 16 MPG easily... that's just ONE observation.

[Drew Dowdell]

You're joking, right?

It is completely full of sarcasm, stereotypes, and half-truths.

181171[/snapback]

.... ok?

but that doesn't mean he was wrong.

it is perfectly feasible... and likely... that the scenario he described will play out many times in relation to this car.

my only issue is the loaded jetta..... she would have bought a loaded 4-cylinder automatic jetta... not the VR6..... because it's thrifty

[siegen]

Maybe Honda doesn't want to offer a 16 mpg V6 (per C/D road test) in their CR-V like Toyota has in the RAV4.

181186[/snapback]

If you are a journalist and are handed a 270hp mini-SUV, wouldn't you romp on it too?

[ocnblu]

If you want to see a good looking small SUV/crossover thing, look no further than the '07 Equinox and Torrent. The tiny updates given to Chevy's Theta really make a difference.

[pow]

If you want to see a good looking small SUV/crossover thing, look no further than the '07 Equinox and Torrent.  The tiny updates given to Chevy's Theta really make a difference.

181220[/snapback]

Yeah, I even like the current Torrent, particularly with the black/tan interior.

[SableStyle]

The third row seat in the Rav is also useless and dangerous.

181114[/snapback]

People don't want it either...I've been working at a Toyota dealership this summer and I haven't seen a single RAV with the third row.

[regfootball]

empowah... check reg's source if you don't believe him.  16 mpg is pathetic real-world mileage for a cramped SUV.  You must have been talking about the EPA ratings, which, as has been shown with the Prius, are meaningless for... certain makes.

181193[/snapback]

Pilots only get 15 mpg in real world use....toyota is not the only culprit i guess.

Normally i give a low mpg vehicle a pass if it weighs a lot. But the RAV 4 only weighs what a sedan weighs. They should have gotten AT LEAST 20mpg with it.

Edited August 17, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

I can make ANY vehicle get 16 MPG easily... that's just ONE observation.

181195[/snapback]

I think car and driver got 16 mpg long term for their hemi equipped magnum. I'll check that. But the hemi magnum wieghs about 700 pounds more than the RAV4 .

Edited August 17, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

.... ok?

but that doesn't mean he was wrong.

it is perfectly feasible... and likely... that the scenario he described will play out many times in relation to this car.

my only issue is the loaded jetta..... she would have bought a loaded 4-cylinder automatic jetta... not the VR6..... because it's thrifty

181199[/snapback]

face it, young women with money won't be caught DEAD in an AMERICAN car. They are drawn like stink on poo to cute and tidy vehicles like the VW's, RDX, CRV etc......

[regfootball]

Yeah, I even like the current Torrent, particularly with the black/tan interior.

181242[/snapback]

yeah, but it needs a major plastics quality upgrade.

[regfootball]

People don't want it either...I've been working at a Toyota dealership this summer and I haven't seen a single RAV with the third row.

181251[/snapback]

something to put on the feature sheet for the buff books to write about and use against other cars.

[Flybrian]

something to put on the feature sheet for the buff books to write about and use against other cars.

181326[/snapback]

I like the stickers plastered all over them at the dealerships and the auto show reading "I'm 68% bigger!"

[sciguy_0504]

Yeah, I even like the current Torrent, particularly with the black/tan interior.

181242[/snapback]

Very nice.

[regfootball]

I like the stickers plastered all over them at the dealerships and the auto show reading "I'm 68% bigger!"

181327[/snapback]

its exactly like the 8 passenger Sienna no dealer has on hand or can find anywhere.

Edited August 17, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

If you are a journalist and are handed a 270hp mini-SUV, wouldn't you romp on it too?

181215[/snapback]

only if i got it drunk after a boat cruise

[regfootball]

from USA today's review of the RDX

With the addictive RDX, Acura seems to have simplified its navigational system, but getting around to enjoy it won't be cheap due to low gas mileage and its premium-fuel appetite.

should be interesting to see if the CRV gets crappy mileage too

[siegen]

Pilots only get 15 mpg in real world use...

Really? Looking over at www.fueleconomy.gov, most users report 17-18mpg with 4wd, and 19mpg with 2wd, in combined driving. Given there's only about 30 entries for the Pilot, it's probably still more accurate than what an auto journalist gets. The Pilot is larger and 600-800 lbs heavier than the RAV4, so it should get less mileage.

[The O.C.]

Yeah, I even like the current Torrent, particularly with the black/tan interior.

181242[/snapback]

[Flybrian]

Oh, please. What is so 'pukey' about the Torrent?

[pow]

Oh, please. What is so 'pukey' about the Torrent?

181393[/snapback]

Well, at least it's better than having a Compaq Presario as a center stack or plastic stick-on trim as burled wood.

[Drew Dowdell]

I like the stickers plastered all over them at the dealerships and the auto show reading "I'm 68% bigger!"

181327[/snapback]

I need to get me one of those.

[regfootball]

Really? Looking over at www.fueleconomy.gov, most users report 17-18mpg with 4wd, and 19mpg with 2wd, in combined driving. Given there's only about 30 entries for the Pilot, it's probably still more accurate than what an auto journalist gets. The Pilot is larger and 600-800 lbs heavier than the RAV4, so it should get less mileage.

181366[/snapback]

the best man from my wedding has new 06 pilot. he gets 15. one of my other groomsman, his wife just traded the odyssey for a pilot and we'll see what he gets soon. also i have read several owner reports on edmunds that suggest 15-16 is not atypical. 17 or 18 is not as common for that car as you suggest.

[regfootball]

Really? Looking over at www.fueleconomy.gov, most users report 17-18mpg with 4wd, and 19mpg with 2wd, in combined driving. Given there's only about 30 entries for the Pilot, it's probably still more accurate than what an auto journalist gets. The Pilot is larger and 600-800 lbs heavier than the RAV4, so it should get less mileage.

181366[/snapback]

but that doesn't explain why the RAV4 gets such piss poor mpg

[regfootball]

Oh, please. What is so 'pukey' about the Torrent?

181393[/snapback]

you'd have to have a picture of looking under the hood to answer that question adequately. note: it would say, 'made in china'

Edited August 17, 2006 by regfootball