Edmunds Evaluation: 2007 Honda CR-V

[Variance]

Edmunds Evaluation: 2007 Honda CR-V

Unlike its predecessors, the 2007 Honda CR-V doesn't feel much like a budget SUV. It's smooth and stable, attractively furnished and equipped with virtually every convenience a young mom (or dad) could want.

Read "First Drive: 2007 Honda CR-V" @ Edmunds

[sciguy_0504]

Unforunately, it looks like the Chinese copied and then slightly altered yet another design.

[regfootball]

Unlike its predecessors, the 2007 Honda CR-V doesn't feel much like a budget SUV. It's smooth and stable, attractively furnished and equipped with virtually every convenience a young mom (or dad) could want.

except....acceleration?

A highly practical vehicle for young parents, ...as long as speed isn't the priority

oh, i see. Its ok for HONDA to put out a dog slow vehicle. Edmunds will still suck up to them.

So it's settled. This sport-ute's for girls.

yes. but aren't most of them anyways? especially hondas.

Of course, it feels slower than the V6-powered RAV4, which gets to 60 in 7 seconds. The carmaker says CR-V buyers are more concerned about fuel economy than speed. Probably true, but with a 21 mpg city/28 mpg highway rating for the V6 4WD RAV4 versus Honda's 22/28 estimate for the 4WD CR-V, that trade-off hardly seems necessary.

During our travels, though, we noticed the turning radius is a bit large. Honda's specs have it at 37.8 feet — 4 feet wider than last year

But Honda is betting that 160,000 buyers a year will be willing to make that compromise

well considering how many new yorkers voted for Hill that number doesn't surprise me, although it makes me sad.

women do ususally get the say in how the family $$ is spent. If i was forced to drive one by my woman, i would just give up and go get castrated. because I am sure that's what this must feel like to be seen in one.

If you want this class of vehicle there are far too many great reaosns to buy the competitors offerings.

XL7-3rd row, v6, bigger, more stlyish

Rav4- far better choic all around

new outlander-v6 and amenities for much less

all better choices.

Edited September 2, 2006 by regfootball

[Farkas]

Most Depressing Interior. EVAR.

It's just so dreadfully depressing. It makes me want to be all gloomy and such just looking at it.

[regfootball]

Most Depressing Interior. EVAR.

It's just so dreadfully depressing.  It makes me want to be all gloomy and such just looking at it.

188150[/snapback]

the gauge hood is kind of a jeep knock off.........

Edited September 2, 2006 by regfootball

[Cremazie]

I really do not like that thing at all, built to make the RDX look good.. and that is saying something!

[Polish_Kris]

except....acceleration?

188145[/snapback]

It's not a sport's car...

[Northstar]

It's not a sport's car...

188200[/snapback]

Neither is the Escalade, and it does 0-60 in 6.2s. Of course, it's a little out of the price range.

The interior reminds me of the VUE.

[regfootball]

It's not a sport's car...

188200[/snapback]

excuses. its a dog. its competitors will outrun it.

continue to make excuses for 100hp fits and slow ass crv's and other slow ass honda products all you want.

a customer will test drive the rav4 and crv and probably walk away with the rav4. only exception is the crv looks a bit better than the rav4. customers who finally come to their senses and want more for their money will then go out and get an outlander or xl-7 or equinox, vue, edge, escape

[sciguy_0504]

Most Depressing Interior. EVAR.

It's just so dreadfully depressing.  It makes me want to be all gloomy and such just looking at it.

188150[/snapback]

I think this is one of the few instances where the higher-end model's interior looks worse than the run-of-the-mill model's interior.

[CARBIZ]

I just don't understand why Honda trucks are so universally ugly. They build some very attractive cars (the TL's, for example), but their trucks....UGH! Those plastic noses look tacked on. Toyota has far better offerings in the truck department.

It's funny, but when GM "dumbs down" its vehicles, the critics are all over it like a bad hair piece - here, its all just excuses and spin.

I'd take a Liberty long before I'd drive a CR-V.

[siegen]

customers who finally come to their senses and want more for their money will then go out and get an outlander or xl-7 or equinox, vue, edge, escape

More for their money? Can you back any of this up, maybe show how those other vehicles offer more for the money than the CRV? Other than a little bigger engine (offset by worse fuel economy).

Last time I checked the Vue and Escape both have smaller less powerful 4 cylinders than the CR-V with worse mileage ratings (best of both worlds?), yet I don't see you complaining about them. Is it because they have a V6 option? What percentage of "cute-ute" buyers do you think opt for the V6 option in these vehicles? Isn't the reason these people are buying these vehicles (crossovers, cute utes, whatever you want to call them) in the first place is to get away from the fuel-hungry bigger SUV's?

The XL-7? You're joking right? I think you need to come to your senses.

[FAPTurbo]

If it just weren't for that awkward nose and the odd window design at the rear, I'd reccomend this vehicle to anyone looking at a Rav-4, or other SUV...

...I'd also put a word or two in for the Equinox of course.

[Polish_Kris]

The XL-7? You're joking right? I think you need to come to your senses.

188372[/snapback]

When he takes his blind-fold off, then that will happen...

[Flybrian]

Honda, stop trying to make your cars look like stupid things.

[WCCPSGM]

When they say more for your money they usually mean resale value. Okay, so the Honda loses $10,000 in a couple years and competitors may loose $12,000. Big whoop. You still lost $10 grand genius. And, oh by the way, the RAV will do as well as, or better, I guess it isn't actually a competitor for the CRV.

I didn't realize Dodge's Caliber was so popular.

First, it slow and there are no excuses. Honda's CARS are usually very quick with a V-6. What's the problem?

All these things are getting fat. They are supposed to be COMPACT SUV's! Chevy didn't accidentally make the Equinox too big, they forsaw the future. I don't understand the market for these things. They are basically tall outback wagons. They can't tow, aren't really usefull off-road, and still aren't as roomy as their prices are big. Honestly, few of them can outdo a mid-size sedan, especially one that costs the same.

Edited September 3, 2006 by WCCPSGM

[regfootball]

I don't understand the market for these things.

188417[/snapback]

well its because people want suv's that are not huge like tahoes and blazers and they want them to basically be high sitting cars with a hatchback. People don't want sedans anymore. It's that simple. Sedans sit too low and don't have the cargo utility. And they don't want them to be dog slow either since they are a replacement for cars more so than a replacement for bigger trucks. they want and are getting carlike handling...and they want hot rod power.

since chevy sells all its equinox with v6 and ford probably 75 percent of its escape that way, vue maybe 50%. i'm guessing the outlander didn't bother with the 4 because no one wants a four. the suzukis are 6 cylinder. that's what the market wants. the caliber etc is a four popper but is smaller chassis, it was meant to replace the neon microcar. Toyota intends about 70% with a 4 cylinder but i bet that number changes to at least 50/50 when they see real demand and have satisified production engine v6 outputs for enough new CamLEES. i am sure the 6 cylinder will soon be at least 50% of toyotas. Look how mazda botched the Mazda6 launch, they made all four cylinders and no one wanted them. Now, most Mazda6's are 6 cylinder and they finally sell. Even Subaru wised up and the legacy outback gets a 6.

real fuel mileage in a vehicle as piggish as this will be about the same with a v6 vs. four anyways. the rav4's have nearly equal mpg between 4 and 6 cylinders. go look at all the owner testimonials on edmunds about the element and see all those weak 4 poppers getting MAYBE 21 22 mpg.

the press and cultists allow honda to be honda and that's great if the kool aid goes down good. but truth is, honda botched it by not offering a v6 here. Ha ha, even KIA gets it and the Tucson/Sportage has the v6. the bigger botch was the RDX, which is a four cylinder fat pig with bad mpg, that consumes more fuel than an escalade, Q7, navigator, QX56, and Mercedes GL class.

Edited September 3, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Isn't the reason these people are buying these vehicles (crossovers, cute utes, whatever you want to call them) in the first place is to get away from the fuel-hungry bigger SUV's?

188372[/snapback]

no, like I just said, they are buying them as replacements for sedans etc.

they want the utility approaching a large SUV but they want the thing to drive like a car, including ENGINE POWER.

you have no pulse on the market.

Hell, Acura cancels its stir fry coupe, no one cares. no tears were shed. no one wants sedans, and especially no one wants coupes and looks what shows up, the RDX. coincidence? I THINK NOT. Cute utes, crossovers, etc. is where the market is at.

Edited September 3, 2006 by regfootball

[siegen]

well its because people want suv's that are not huge like tahoes and blazers and they want them to basically be high sitting cars with a hatchback.  People don't want sedans anymore.  It's that simple.  Sedans sit too low and don't have the cargo utility.  And they don't want them to be dog slow either since they are a replacement for cars more so than a replacement for bigger trucks.  they want and are getting carlike handling...and they want hot rod power.

since chevy sells all its equinox with v6 and ford probably 75 percent of its escape that way, vue maybe 50%.  i'm guessing the outlander didn't bother with the 4 because no one wants a four.  the suzukis are 6 cylinder.  that's what the market wants.  the caliber etc is a four popper but is smaller chassis, it was meant to replace the neon microcar.  Toyota intends about 70% with a 4 cylinder but i bet that number changes to at least 50/50 when they see real demand and have satisified production engine v6 outputs for enough new CamLEES.  i am sure the 6 cylinder will soon be at least 50% of toyotas.  Look how mazda botched the Mazda6 launch, they made all four cylinders and no one wanted them.  Now, most Mazda6's are 6 cylinder and they finally sell.  Even Subaru wised up and the legacy outback gets a 6.

real fuel mileage in a vehicle as piggish as this will be about the same with a v6 vs. four anyways.  the rav4's have nearly equal mpg between 4 and 6 cylinders.  go look at all the owner testimonials on edmunds about the element and see all those weak 4 poppers getting MAYBE 21 22 mpg.

the press and cultists allow honda to be honda and that's great if the kool aid goes down good.  but truth is, honda botched it by not offering a v6 here.  Ha ha, even KIA gets it and the Tucson/Sportage has the v6.  the bigger botch was the RDX, which is a four cylinder fat pig with bad mpg, that consumes more fuel than an escalade, Q7, navigator, QX56, and Mercedes GL class.

Can you give some sources for all these facts?

[CARBIZ]

For the most part, SUVs, whether big or small, just massage people's egos. There really is no reason for these vehicles to exist, other than someone in Detroit realized 25 years ago that people would be stupid enough to pay a lot more money to be stuffed into a big, heavy gas guzzling STATION WAGON.

Even up here in the hinterland we just don't get enough snow to justify the extra cost/expense of the 4WD.

And has anyone considered that if YOU are higher up and can SEE better, that perhaps YOU are BLOCKING everyone else's vision?????

I love seeing these huge Sequoias, Tahoes, etc. on the expressway with one tiny person sitting behind the wheel. Smart, real smart.

So some fool (usually a woman, in this case) convinces themselves that by buying a 4 cylinder version of the SUV that they are somehow helping the environment.

I should be up for an Academy Award for acting when I go through the motions of showing an Equinox or Trailblazer (not that we sell many of those any more) to prospects because they will feel "safer" and they will be "higher up."

How about a $1,000 per year plate fee for an SUV, unless you can produce a trailer license of sufficient weight to require an SUV (or pickup) to tow it?

[Get's off soap box and hides]

[Croc]

Most Depressing Interior. EVAR.

It's just so dreadfully depressing.  It makes me want to be all gloomy and such just looking at it.

188150[/snapback]

okay then mr emo

interior is a whole lotta meh, but I won't say it's depressing. You want depressing? Check out a TrailBlazer or Colorado.

[enzl]

well its because people want suv's that are not huge like tahoes and blazers and they want them to basically be high sitting cars with a hatchback.  People don't want sedans anymore.  It's that simple.  Sedans sit too low and don't have the cargo utility.  And they don't want them to be dog slow either since they are a replacement for cars more so than a replacement for bigger trucks.  they want and are getting carlike handling...and they want hot rod power.

since chevy sells all its equinox with v6 and ford probably 75 percent of its escape that way, vue maybe 50%.  i'm guessing the outlander didn't bother with the 4 because no one wants a four.  the suzukis are 6 cylinder.  that's what the market wants.  the caliber etc is a four popper but is smaller chassis, it was meant to replace the neon microcar.  Toyota intends about 70% with a 4 cylinder but i bet that number changes to at least 50/50 when they see real demand and have satisified production engine v6 outputs for enough new CamLEES.  i am sure the 6 cylinder will soon be at least 50% of toyotas.  Look how mazda botched the Mazda6 launch, they made all four cylinders and no one wanted them.  Now, most Mazda6's are 6 cylinder and they finally sell.  Even Subaru wised up and the legacy outback gets a 6.

real fuel mileage in a vehicle as piggish as this will be about the same with a v6 vs. four anyways.  the rav4's have nearly equal mpg between 4 and 6 cylinders.  go look at all the owner testimonials on edmunds about the element and see all those weak 4 poppers getting MAYBE 21 22 mpg.

the press and cultists allow honda to be honda and that's great if the kool aid goes down good.  but truth is, honda botched it by not offering a v6 here.  Ha ha, even KIA gets it and the Tucson/Sportage has the v6.  the bigger botch was the RDX, which is a four cylinder fat pig with bad mpg, that consumes more fuel than an escalade, Q7, navigator, QX56, and Mercedes GL class.

188488[/snapback]

This entire post is either grossly inaccurate or delusional...

...and, I hope the next time you utter the word 'Camlee' in public a little skinny Japanese woman roundhouse kicks you in the face.

You should be ashamed for being such an ignorant f*&^, but I suspect from your writing you'll never be smart enough to realize it.

Oh...and they'll sell every CRV they produce, ugly ass grill & suspect gas mileage notwithstanding....(Maybe the next gen GM x-overs will get an interior with comparable plastics next time, huh?)

Edited September 3, 2006 by enzl

[Drew Dowdell]

Oh...and they'll sell every CRV they produce, ugly ass grill & suspect gas mileage notwithstanding....

188621[/snapback]

*Only* because it has an upright H on the grill.

[enzl]

*Only* because it has an upright H on the grill.

188625[/snapback]

Let's review:

Some people will buy it because of the H, no doubt.

Others will buy it because:

1. If history is any judge, it'll be more reliable than almost any alternative (please don't bother comparing it's history to the Vue or Nox, its embarassing)

2. It's not as large as the updated RAV4...(Lots of our Toyota customers complain that the RAV has gotten to big and too expensive)

3. It drives like a car...a small, well mannered Japanese car.

4. They're downsizing from their last gen beheamoth SUV and already own an Accord or another of Honda's sterling products. 22mpg city will look like a dream when they're currently averaging 12.

5. The presentation on the showroom floor is superior. Panel fits, interior plastics and the general interface will look right. Not misfitting or misguided or tacky....(For the former, I'll reference any current DCX little x-over interior tupperware, for the latter, how about that pl-wood in the Vue's new interior. Awful.)

6. Odds are their dealer will still be there next year.

7. They could sell/trade it in in the next few years and not take a bath.

That's off the top...I'm pretty sure that if it was my $25k, I'd have the clarity to come up with a couple more....

Edited September 3, 2006 by enzl

[Drew Dowdell]

Let's review:

Some people will buy it because of the H, no doubt.

Others will buy it because:

1. If history is any judge, it'll be more reliable than almost any alternative (please don't bother comparing it's history to the Vue or Nox, its embarassing)

2. It's not as large as the updated RAV4...(Lots of our Toyota customers complain that the RAV has gotten to big and too expensive)

3. It drives like a car...a small, well mannered Japanese car.

4. They're downsizing from their last gen beheamoth SUV and already own an Accord or another of Honda's sterling products. 22mpg city will look like a dream when they're currently averaging 12.

5. The presentation on the showroom floor is superior. Panel fits, interior plastics and the general interface will look right. Not misfitting or misguided or tacky....(For the former, I'll reference any current DCX little x-over interior tupperware, for the latter, how about that pl-wood in the Vue's new interior. Awful.)

6. Odds are their dealer will still be there next year.

7. They could sell/trade it in in the next few years and not take a bath.

That's off the top...I'm pretty sure that if it was my $25k, I'd have the clarity to come up with a couple more....

188628[/snapback]

That's great, but you've overlooked my two main objections. It's ugly as sin from the front while managing to be bland everywhere else, and, the interior look is just "ho hum" .

As an appliance, I'm sure it's great. As for passion, it has none.

[The O.C.]

That's great, but you've overlooked my two main objections.  It's ugly as sin from the front while managing to be bland everywhere else, and, the interior look is just "ho hum" .

As an appliance, I'm sure it's great. As for passion, it has none.

188632[/snapback]

Absolutely.....entirely....YOUR subjective opinion......

....an opinion that hundreds of thousands of "cute-ute" consumers out there may very possibly disagree with.....

I'm NOT a "cute-ute" consumer.....but I actually find the design interesting and intriquing....and the interior appears to be a massive improvement in looks and design over the previous CR-V (which I personally did not like at all.)

I'm not saying you are wrong to have your opinion.....and you aren't.....but the points that Enzl pointed to in HIS post were much more in tune with what is more likely the true reality of the marketplace as it surrounds Honda and the CR-V.

[regfootball]

*Only* because it has an upright H on the grill.

188625[/snapback]

yup

and two weeks after they bought it they will be wondering where those 2 extra cylinders are......

Edited September 3, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

7. They could sell/trade it in in the next few years and not take a bath.

188628[/snapback]

no, because they already took a bigger bath when they paid 28-30 thou and overpaid by about 6-8 grand for a small slow 4 cylinder hatchback.

honda owners always sent to forget how much they get bent over at the start. its like my friend who blew far too much cash for their odyssey. 33k and got less than 18 in trade for it after 30 months on a new Pilot, which I am sure they overpaid for as well. Now that's RESALE!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH that amounts to a 6 thou loss per year. oh yeah, that's resale.

that's some tasty koolaid.

Jesus said to pray for those in need. I think we should all bow our heads and pray for those CRV intenders, that they get a shred of a clue, and at least take their stolen cash and go get CX-7 or even a RAV4 instead. Something with some MERIT.

Edited September 3, 2006 by regfootball

[enzl]

no, because they already took a bigger bath when they paid 28-30 thou and overpaid by about 6-8 grand for a small slow 4 cylinder hatchback.

   

honda owners always sent to forget how much they get bent over at the start.  its like my friend who blew far too much cash for their odyssey.  33k and got less than 18 in trade for it after 30 months on a new Pilot, which I am sure they overpaid for as well.  Now that's RESALE!!!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH  that amounts to a 6 thou loss per year.  oh yeah, that's resale.

that's some tasty koolaid.

Jesus said to pray for those in need.  I think we should all bow our heads and pray for those CRV intenders, that they get a shred of a clue, and at least take their stolen cash and go get CX-7 or even a RAV4 instead.  Something with some MERIT.

188667[/snapback]

Like every dealer doesn't bend their customers over. That loss is the result of poor negotiating and a clear ignorance of the sales process.

We trade low and sell as high as possible, with as much aftermarket as the customer will bear. It's the same everywhere.

Perhaps you should have gone with your 'friend' so he wouldn't get gipped....

I love how these anecdotes are supposed to sway opinion. Your stupid friend gets jobbed an now that 's why the CRV sux. That's not just stupid, its illogical as an argument.

I never defended the CRV's look (which is ugly or boring, depending upon the angle)---but your contrary points are pointless.

Edited September 3, 2006 by enzl

[Drew Dowdell]

The resale card can be played both ways... but it is slightly less less insidious with the domestics.

Yes, the domestics depreciate faster *from sticker* than their foreign counterparts, but generally one can get a domestic for cheaper than a foreign car of equal size and option

So, yes, one takes a hit on depreciation on a domestic, BUT with a foreign make, you pay more upfront... and possibly pay interest on it.

Which is worse? They both suck, but the imports get to charge you interest while you get screwed.

[regfootball]

The resale card can be played both ways... but it is slightly less less insidious with the domestics. 

Yes, the domestics depreciate faster *from sticker* than their foreign counterparts, but generally one can get a domestic for cheaper than a foreign car of equal size and option

So, yes, one takes a hit on depreciation on a domestic, BUT with a foreign make, you pay more upfront... and possibly pay interest on it.

Which is worse? They both suck, but the imports get to charge you interest while you get screwed.

188712[/snapback]

you still end up paying more for the imports, even if the resale PERCENTAGE is better. the higher price and cost of interest of it makes it more spendy.

and then when you have to fix the honda it costs you twice as much.

Anytime anyone tries to use the 'resale' card to me to justify their purchase of something like a honda or toyota i first, just shake my head, because I'm like, you don't have to explain to ME why you bought something. But then I figure since they are trying so HARD to justify it and get me to agree with them they must feel from the outset like they were getting screwed and they need to get their affirmation from somewhere.

Edited September 4, 2006 by regfootball

[siegen]

and then when you have to fix the honda it costs you twice as much.

But what if you only have to fix it half as often?

And don't forget Honda now has a longer (5 year vs 3 year) powertrain warranty compared to Chevrolet.

[Drew Dowdell]

But what if you only have to fix it half as often?

And don't forget Honda now has a longer (5 year vs 3 year) powertrain warranty compared to Chevrolet.

188735[/snapback]

There isn't that large of a statistical difference between Chevrolet and Honda to justify needing repair twice as often. This isn't Honda v. Kia we're talking here. Chevy is average, Honda is on the high side of average.

The Cobalt and HHR have very good reliability ratings.

[sciguy_0504]

That's great, but you've overlooked my two main objections.  It's ugly as sin from the front while managing to be bland everywhere else, and, the interior look is just "ho hum" .

As an appliance, I'm sure it's great. As for passion, it has none.

188632[/snapback]

Passion, passion, passion. Who buys these things for passion? I see this has quickly become the #1 defense of GM products yet the only cars in GM's stable with passion are the Corvette, SKY, Solstice, CTS-V, STS-V and XLR-V, all niche players. Let's face it: all mainsteam cars do not have passion.

[Satty]

The resale advantage Toyotas and Hondas have comes in really handy if you have a bad accident and wreck the car, especially if you're upside down. I learned that one from experiece. I paid $7900 for the Solara but was upside down because of the Saturn I traded in but the insurance paid off over $10k after I put 30k miles on the car.

[FAPTurbo]

I think this vehicle is getting way more flak than it deserves.

Although I think the exterior is kinda fugly, it's not as if this is the Kia Amanti we're talking here.

Ok, so it doesn't have much gallop, but plenty of people don't want or need speed and eye popping 0-60 times. This SUV instead delivers economy and practicality and the reliability expected of Honda.

It also stays comparatively small catering to those who may find the RAV-4 bigger than they need.

As for the interior, it's well built, and very Honda. Some people hate it, myself included, and others love it.

[pow]

Passion, passion, passion.  Who buys these things for passion?  I see this has quickly become the #1 defense of GM products yet the only cars in GM's stable with passion are the Corvette, SKY, Solstice, CTS-V, STS-V and XLR-V, all niche players.  Let's face it: all mainsteam cars do not have passion.

188816[/snapback]

I'm willing to say that most Honda mainstream cars have arguably more passion than GM's. Sure, they're not exactly exciting or exotic, but they have a sporty, enthusiast's touch to the engineering, which influences everything from ergonomics to driver controls. C&D nailed it with their review of the Odyssey: "... it has a sort of participatory vigor on the road that all car guys respond to, a direct communication link to the driver's instincts." Honda makes very fun and pure cars even without a lot of power.

[regfootball]

must have been the current odyssey because the last version of odyssey drove like as much of a tank as most other minivans.

[regfootball]

someone posted this tonight in GMI from wardsauto. i don't have ward's auto so i can't get the whole article but this is what it said apparently.

"Residuals for its (GM) cars – what they’re worth after three years on the road – are rising, meaning the market value of GM’s brands is inching upward. The ’07 Chevrolet Cobalt, Pontiac G6 and Saturn Aura now are expected to hold their ground about as well as a Honda Civic, Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, respectively."

interesting......

[enzl]

someone posted this tonight in GMI from wardsauto.  i don't have ward's auto so i can't get the whole article but this is what it said apparently.

interesting......

189006[/snapback]

*Until you go to a dealer that exists in the real world.

Residuals are definitely on the way up for GM. The problem is that the average used Honda or Toyota sells for more once it's on the lot and generally sells very quickly. (Toyota dealers have been forced to scan the papers for individuals selling certifiable (low mileage) used Toyotas for inventory!)

[Polish_Kris]

must have been the current odyssey because the last version of odyssey drove like as much of a tank as most other minivans.

189001[/snapback]

Um... no, I worked as a car jockey and detailer at Honda for two years back in High School, and the Odyssey was praised by customers for it's smoothness, quality, and it's power. Beleive me, we used to beat the living $h! out of those vans when we had to go on customer shuttle runs And for a minivan... it was a pretty powerful machine...

[CARBIZ]

The resale argument is a non-starter. More of the Japan Inc's kool aid.

This is not anecdotal, okay. We own two Toyota stores and a Chevy store.

A bad example would be a 2005 Cavalier that sold NEW (a/c, auto, Cd) for $12,999 last year WITH a 5 year power train warranty. A similarly equippped Corolla was selling for $18,400. When you add Canada's horrible taxes (15% in Ontario last year), the Corolla ends up costing even more. When you add finance charges on top of that, well, it gets ugly.

So, just adding taxes (let's forget about cost of money, higher insurance, etc.) the Cavalier is $6,200 cheaper out the door. I am talking REAL numbers here, boys and girls, not the BS published.

So, what is a 2000 Corolla worth in this market? Around $9 grand, traded in. How about a 2000 Cavalier? $3,000 or so, depending on the condition. OOPs, looks like they work out to be about the same.

GASP! How can that be? Toyota's are better, right?

It is too soon to see how well the Cobalt will fare and its transaction price is much closer to the Corolla's, so it will be an interesting contest to watch over the next couple years.

As an aside, here, I'd like to point out one PROFESSIONAL observation here that seems to get lost in people's rush to defend Toyota and HOnda: if you are a customer and you shop a Chevy dealer and could get a Cavalier for $15k out the door, then went to a Toyota store and realized the Corolla would be over $21,000 out the door, yet you still deliberately spent $6,200 MORE because you were convinced the Toyota was a better car, don't you think this consumer would have the car maintained better, washed, waxed and cared for - after all, he bought a PREMIUM vehicle. You wouldn't believe the condition we see Cavaliers come back in. People drive with cracked windshields for years. Dog hair every where. Bald tires. Run into the ground. One guy went 45k km with no oil change in his Z24! When someone trades in a Toytoa, many of them pay to have it detailed first!

Just an observation from someone who knows where all Toyota's bodies are buried, too.

[The O.C.]

and then when you have to fix the honda it costs you twice as much.

188729[/snapback]

Let's see your data to back up that comment.......

????

[enzl]

The resale argument is a non-starter.  More of the Japan Inc's kool aid.

  This is not anecdotal, okay.  We own two Toyota stores and a Chevy store. 

  A bad example would be a 2005 Cavalier that sold NEW (a/c, auto, Cd) for $12,999 last year WITH a 5 year power train warranty.  A similarly equippped Corolla was selling for $18,400.  When you add Canada's horrible taxes (15% in Ontario last year), the Corolla ends up costing even more.  When you add finance charges on top of that, well, it gets ugly.

  So, just adding taxes (let's forget about cost of money, higher insurance, etc.) the Cavalier is $6,200 cheaper out the door.  I am talking REAL numbers here, boys and girls, not the BS published.

  So, what is a 2000 Corolla worth in this market?  Around $9 grand, traded in.  How about a 2000 Cavalier?  $3,000 or so, depending on the condition.  OOPs, looks like they work out to be about the same.

  GASP!  How can that be?  Toyota's are better, right?

  It is too soon to see how well the Cobalt will fare and its transaction price is much closer to the Corolla's, so it will be an interesting contest to watch over the next couple years.

  As an aside, here, I'd like to point out one PROFESSIONAL observation here that seems to get lost in people's rush to defend Toyota and HOnda:  if you are a customer and you shop a Chevy dealer and could get a Cavalier for $15k out the door, then went to a Toyota store and realized the Corolla would be over $21,000 out the door, yet you still deliberately spent $6,200 MORE because you were convinced the Toyota was a better car, don't you think this consumer would have the car maintained better, washed, waxed and cared for - after all, he bought a PREMIUM vehicle.  You wouldn't believe the condition we see Cavaliers come back in.  People drive with cracked windshields for years.  Dog hair every where.  Bald tires.  Run into the ground.  One guy went 45k km with no oil change in his Z24! When someone trades in a Toytoa, many of them pay to have it detailed first!

  Just an observation from someone who knows where all Toyota's bodies are buried, too.

189153[/snapback]

Keep in mind, US Taxes are half or less on average, so I'll express an opposite, yet plausible example:

Same scenario, but that Cavalier sits on my lot, where I borrowed $ at 6% plus fees...If it sits for 6 months, I lose 3% of its value to finance charges and another $500-1000 from BOOK (ie the amount a bank will loan me to sell that car).

Net-Net: Upside down consumer (the proportion is staggering, here in the states) cannot be bought. I lose the sale.

That same Toyota will sell within a month of hitting our 'big' used lot. It'll be financed, I'll get a couple of points on a much higher dollar figure, and everybody's happy.

(Toyota dealers have been scouring the ad pages. Have you guys? --"Dealers scramble for Used Toyotas":, see AN 8-26-06)

Edited September 4, 2006 by enzl

[regfootball]

Um... no, I worked as a car jockey and detailer at Honda for two years back in High School, and the Odyssey was praised by customers for it's smoothness, quality, and it's power. Beleive me, we used to beat the living $h! out of those vans when we had to go on customer shuttle runs  And for a minivan... it was a pretty powerful machine...

189088[/snapback]

well, i test drove hard and it sucked. proof enough for me. rode like a train car and felt like driving a bus. the quest had much better driving dynamics.

[regfootball]

The resale argument is a non-starter.  More of the Japan Inc's kool aid.

  This is not anecdotal, okay.  We own two Toyota stores and a Chevy store. 

  A bad example would be a 2005 Cavalier that sold NEW (a/c, auto, Cd) for $12,999 last year WITH a 5 year power train warranty.  A similarly equippped Corolla was selling for $18,400.  When you add Canada's horrible taxes (15% in Ontario last year), the Corolla ends up costing even more.  When you add finance charges on top of that, well, it gets ugly.

  So, just adding taxes (let's forget about cost of money, higher insurance, etc.) the Cavalier is $6,200 cheaper out the door.  I am talking REAL numbers here, boys and girls, not the BS published.

  So, what is a 2000 Corolla worth in this market?  Around $9 grand, traded in.  How about a 2000 Cavalier?  $3,000 or so, depending on the condition.  OOPs, looks like they work out to be about the same.

  GASP!  How can that be?  Toyota's are better, right?

  It is too soon to see how well the Cobalt will fare and its transaction price is much closer to the Corolla's, so it will be an interesting contest to watch over the next couple years.

  As an aside, here, I'd like to point out one PROFESSIONAL observation here that seems to get lost in people's rush to defend Toyota and HOnda:  if you are a customer and you shop a Chevy dealer and could get a Cavalier for $15k out the door, then went to a Toyota store and realized the Corolla would be over $21,000 out the door, yet you still deliberately spent $6,200 MORE because you were convinced the Toyota was a better car, don't you think this consumer would have the car maintained better, washed, waxed and cared for - after all, he bought a PREMIUM vehicle.  You wouldn't believe the condition we see Cavaliers come back in.  People drive with cracked windshields for years.  Dog hair every where.  Bald tires.  Run into the ground.  One guy went 45k km with no oil change in his Z24! When someone trades in a Toytoa, many of them pay to have it detailed first!

  Just an observation from someone who knows where all Toyota's bodies are buried, too.

189153[/snapback]

i'm sure there are a bunch of clueless urbanites who grab their CR and head for the toyota dealer and they are much more than happy to pay 50 bucks for the dealer oil changes and like 1000 bucks for a 30,000 mile service. then there were those morons who didn't change the oil in their camrys and stuff and they got sludge.

and all the honda transmissions that went bad.........

buying toyotas and hondas is how the 'educated' class of people, the pottery barn and crate and barrel set, mainstain their visual 'superiority' over those who have to spend their money on more important things. it defies logic to them to spend less and keep some money in their pocket because they work in jobs that make lots of money. A lot of those industries and stuff are self created. Things like 'consultants', etc......the other group that buys hondas are the youngsters who may have liked civics and honda motorcycles and stuff. GM for example just does not sell to the crate and barrel set nor the 'import performance' crowd. but the MYTh has become so large now , that groups who never bought toyotas before are starting to buy them.

Example, an 80+ yo retired farmer in my dad's condo....he has like a 12 yo S-10 with about 200k miles on it, its his tooling truck. He wanted something new. He drank the Kool aid and bought a tacoma. He likes the new Toyota but never drives it. He keeps driving the S-10. He bought the Toyota because of the media and personal influences from outside. He was a happy lifetime GM owner.

You can see it in the numbers. toyota goes up 6% one month when Ford is down.

Now I don't know if he got a good deal ont he Tacoma, but I bet it was several thousand more than the Chevy.

Yet he still drives his chevy that's over a decade old with 200,000 miles and its still going.

It's those people GM and Ford cannot afford to lose unless they conquest sales themselves and they still can't do it even with good cars like the Cobalt.

Hell, why is it Mazda can oly sell 70,000 3's YTD and the lousy ugly Civic sells like 3-4 times that? The Mazda3 is so much more appealing all around. It just goes to show how the buyers can be a big joke sometimes.

Edited September 5, 2006 by regfootball

[pow]

well, i test drove hard and it sucked.  proof enough for me.  rode like a train car and felt like driving a bus.  the quest had much better driving dynamics.

189281[/snapback]

Funny, I drove the Quest and greatly preferred the Ody.

Our '03 feels biblically quick, like dangerously quick, especially if you floor it and have just one person on board.

[pow]

i'm sure there are a bunch of clueless urbanites who grab their CR and head for the toyota dealer and they are much more than happy to pay 50 bucks for the dealer oil changes and like 1000 bucks for a 30,000 mile service.  then there were those morons who didn't change the oil in their camrys and stuff and they got sludge.

and all the honda transmissions that went bad.........

buying toyotas and hondas is how the 'educated' class of people, the pottery barn and crate and barrel set, mainstain their visual 'superiority' over those who have to spend their money on more important things.  it defies logic to them to spend less and keep some money in their pocket because they work in jobs that make lots of money.  A lot of those industries and stuff are self created.  Things like 'consultants', etc......the other group that buys hondas are the youngsters who may have liked civics and honda motorcycles and stuff.  GM for example just does not sell to the crate and barrel set nor the 'import performance' crowd.  but the MYTh has become so large now , that groups who never bought toyotas before are starting to buy them.

Example, an 80+ yo retired farmer in my dad's condo....he has like a 12 yo S-10 with about 200k miles on it, its his tooling truck.  He wanted something new.  He drank the Kool aid and bought a tacoma.  He likes the new Toyota but never drives it.  He keeps driving the S-10.  He bought the Toyota because of the media and personal influences from outside.  He was a happy lifetime GM owner. 

You can see it in the numbers.  toyota goes up 6% one month when Ford is down.

Now I don't know if he got a good deal ont he Tacoma, but I bet it was several thousand more than the Chevy.

Yet he still drives his chevy that's over a decade old with 200,000 miles and its still going.

It's those people GM and Ford cannot afford to lose unless they conquest sales themselves and they still can't do it even with good cars like the Cobalt.

Hell, why is it Mazda can oly sell 70,000 3's YTD and the lousy ugly Civic sells like 3-4 times that?  The Mazda3 is so much more appealing all around.  It just goes to show how the buyers can be a big joke sometimes.

189286[/snapback]

Maybe in MN... but certainly not here. Toyotas and Hondas are equally blue-collar for hard working people and their hard earned cash. People are normally loyal to brands that treat them well, like my 82 y/o grandpa and his 15 yo 3/4 ton 200K mi Toyota truck.

[Drew Dowdell]

Hell, why is it Mazda can oly sell 70,000 3's YTD and the lousy ugly Civic sells like 3-4 times that?  The Mazda3 is so much more appealing all around.  It just goes to show how the buyers can be a big joke sometimes.

189286[/snapback]

truth!

[regfootball]

truth!

189333[/snapback]

especially when the mazdaspeed 3 starts slapping the wussy civic si all around. Let's see, the mazdaspeed 3 will have 250hp and great handling. the cobalt ss will get a boost to 260hp. the caliber srt-4 will peg 300hp. guess which one will win the magazine comparos despite 132 lbft of torque, only at full throttle.