Does Honda CR-V 4WD have the low range? Can it run 4WD at slow speed?
Dien Phan
I read different articles about the Honda CR-V as a 4WD SUV and got conflicting
information about its 4WD capability. According to Honda, its 4WD system
is a real time 4WD. During normal operation, CR-V is a front wheel drive SUV.
Whener it detects the slippage on its wheels, the 4WD will kick in to run it
on all 4 wheels. However, some car magazines said that Honda CR-V 4WD system does
not have a low range, a feature that exist in Ford Explorer, 4Runner, Pathfinder,
and Jeep Cherokee. Is this a correct statement?
Because of confusing terminology (real time 4WD rather than 4WD or AWD)
my question is: Will it run on 4WD at slow speed on snow or mud? Anyone
out there who have tested it on snow/mud at low speed (0-5MPH) please
enlighten me? Thanks.
Willem-Jan Markerink
In article <5hking$9...@Urvile.MSUS.EDU>,
Ph...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu (Dien Phan) wrote:
>I read different articles about the Honda CR-V as a 4WD SUV and got
conflicting
>information about its 4WD capability. According to Honda, its 4WD system
>is a real time 4WD. During normal operation, CR-V is a front wheel drive
SUV.
>Whener it detects the slippage on its wheels, the 4WD will kick in to run
it
>on all 4 wheels. However, some car magazines said that Honda CR-V 4WD
system does
>not have a low range, a feature that exist in Ford Explorer, 4Runner,
Pathfinder,
>and Jeep Cherokee. Is this a correct statement?
Yep.
>Because of confusing terminology (real time 4WD rather than 4WD or AWD)
>my question is: Will it run on 4WD at slow speed on snow or mud? Anyone
>out there who have tested it on snow/mud at low speed (0-5MPH) please
>enlighten me? Thanks.
It will engage the rear axle only *when* and *after* slip occurs.
This is an as crappy system as the V6 Explorers, and it degrades the
definiation of AWD. Look at it as a fast acting part time 4wd, but it comes
nowhere near full time 4wd.
I believe the first reports already showed that the full time RAV4 happily
plowed the sand and dirt, where the Honda got stuck. Real 4wd, either full
time or part time engaged, is crucial when driving on the edge of traction,
2wd doesn't get you anywhere, no matter how short the period of 2wd is; the
driven wheels simply dig in before the other wheels can do their job.
I wrote a short chapter on the subject of AWD/4wd/full time:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm
--
Bye,
_/ _/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/ illem _/ _/ an _/ _/ _/ arkerink
_/_/_/
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<w.j.ma...@a1.nl>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
Paul W Harvey
On 30 Mar 1997 02:21:36 GMT, Ph...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu (Dien Phan)
wrote:
>I read different articles about the Honda CR-V as a 4WD SUV and got conflicting
>information about its 4WD capability. According to Honda, its 4WD system
>is a real time 4WD. During normal operation, CR-V is a front wheel drive SUV.
>Whener it detects the slippage on its wheels, the 4WD will kick in to run it
>on all 4 wheels. However, some car magazines said that Honda CR-V 4WD system does
>not have a low range, a feature that exist in Ford Explorer, 4Runner, Pathfinder,
>and Jeep Cherokee. Is this a correct statement?
Yes. The CRV does not have a low range.
>Because of confusing terminology (real time 4WD rather than 4WD or AWD)
>my question is: Will it run on 4WD at slow speed on snow or mud? Anyone
>out there who have tested it on snow/mud at low speed (0-5MPH) please
>enlighten me? Thanks.
No. In fact, it won't drive across a sandy beach. The is a thread on
CRVs, RAV4s, and Outbacks in the group right now. I posted some test
results and some tech information in it. In short, the Real time 4wd
system isn't really going to cut it off-road or in the mud. It
doesn't engage in a way that will allow it to power both axles all the
time as is best in mud. Additionally, the CRV has cheesy looking
axles that probably would hold up with even moderate off-road use.
Try picking up the March issue of Road and Track for the RAV4/CRV
comparo, or the Car and Driver '97 Pickup, SUV, and Van Buyer's Guide
for a good description of the CRVs system. Both mags have good
information.
Here's some of what was said in the RAV4 - CRV thread....
LONG!!!! Previously posted info follows!!!!!!
>Here's the rest of the story according to Car and Driver's 97 Buyers Guide for Pickups, SUVs, and vans.
>Info from page 69.....
>" A full-time four-wheel-drive system - Honda calls it "Real Time 4wd" - completes the powertrain. It consists of a conventional front wheel drive setup, a transfer case that feed power through a drive shaft to the rear differential, and a dual-pump hydralic system with one pump driven by the front half of the system and the other by the rear.
>"When the CR-V is running on dry pavement, the front and rear hydralic pumps operate at the same speed, essentially cancelling each other out. If the fron wheels begin to turn faster than the rear wheels, as would happen on snow or ice, the two pumps begin to spin at different rate. This creates a rise in hydraulic pressure which causes a multiplate clutch to come into play. The clutch engages the driveshaft with the rear differential, thus feeding power to the rear wheels. The system is completely automatic - no electronics or driver intervention is involved - and it automatically disengages under braking which allows the ABS to properly engage."
>(Any spelling errors are mine and not C&D's.)
>The begining of the arcticle states, "Like the RAV4, the CR-V is based on an existing passenger car platform; in this case Honda's 103.2 - inch wheelbase Civic." I believe someone (Hall?) was questioning that earlier in the thread.
>The arcticle really doesn't answer your question, Rich. I figured I'd post it anyway because the system is rather unique and I thought y'all might be interested in it. Could it be the clutches allow the system to slip when the front - to - rear wheel speeds vary in a turn?
>>Has anyone here actually tested a RAV4 and CRV side-by-side? While
>>the AWD systems may be different, just how much of a difference does
>>it make in the real world?
>Yep they sure have. Road and Track tested the CRV and RAV4 head to head. You can read about it in the March 1997 issue page 82. The difference in the RAV and CRV AWD systems allowed the RAV to drive across a sand beach, the CRV had to be pushed. Not an easy thing to push a car through sand, sure would have pissed me off.
>>
>>Furthermore, for the small difference the AWD systems might make, what
>>percentage of the time would you be using it? For vehicles which are
>>designed to be all-weather mobile, I don't think the type of AWD
>>system used is all that important.
>More important than you would think. Standard RAVs can lock the center diff so you'll have true 4wd (2wd actually). The CRV's system requires some spin at the front before the back will engage. Sometimes you just don't want spin, could be the deciding factor in a loss of control.
>Here's how the vehicles faired:
>Both autos, AC, alloy wheels. RAV4 rear LSD, CRV rear not stated
> CRV RAV4
>Price as tested 21,175 USD 21,783 USD
>Test Weight 3330# 3035#
>Horsepower (bhp) 126@5400 120@5400
>Torque 133@4300 125@4600
>Redline 6200 6250
>Fuel 87 oct 87oct
>Drive sys FWD/pt 4wd AWD
>MPG 20.2 19.5
>(normal driving)
>Spd 700ft Slalom 58.8 59.8
>0-20mph (sec) 2.5 2.4
>0-30mph 4.1 4.2
>0-40mph 6.0 6.4
>0-50mph 8.6 9.5
>0-60 11.9 13.0
>1/4mile 18.7@74mph 19...@72.4mph
>60-0 (feet) 136 147
>Brake Cntl Excellent Excellent
>Pedal effort .5g 15# 20#
>Fade 6 .5g stops 20# 25#
>They said the RAV4 had more torque down low, making it feel faster and more fun than its stats relate. Overall they said the CRV had a slight edge over the RAV4 because it had more room, "civilized road manners", and appealing design. Counterpoint, they said both vehicles were great for what they are intended to be, all weather, utilitarian run-abouts.
>Some people will opt for the RAV4 because it is available in manual trans. You may be interested to know Consumer Reports got 19/32, 25 overall, and went 0-60 in 18.2 in the manual RAV4; all of which beats the CRV.
>Personally, if I was forced to buy either an RAV4 or a CRV I would go with the RAV4. If for no other reason, then because the CRV's looks don't appeal to me. Additionally, I like the RAV4's drive system better. An plain vanilla locking center differential seldom fails. I'm leary of the twin pump, hydralically actuated system which drives the rear of the CRV, too much stuff to break.
>On an aside the RAV4 doesn't comply with the side impact crash test. This goes back to a thread SEVERAL months ago when people were saying it did.
>Hope the data helps. I can post other CRV - RAV4 test data on request.
--Paul
Jerry Bransford
Paul W Harvey wrote:
<stuff deleted>
> >my question is: Will it run on 4WD at slow speed on snow or mud? Anyone
> >out there who have tested it on snow/mud at low speed (0-5MPH) please
> >enlighten me? Thanks.
>
> No. In fact, it won't drive across a sandy beach. The is a thread on
> CRVs, RAV4s, and Outbacks in the group right now. I posted some test
> results and some tech information in it. In short, the Real time 4wd
> system isn't really going to cut it off-road or in the mud.
Nonsense... As most anyone knows here, I'm definitely not a fan of CRVs,
RAV4s, etc...but to say they can't drive across a sandy beach is utter
nonsense.
If driven incorrectly they can get stuck, if driven into soft-wet sand
they can get stuck too. My main point is that people drive plain old
two-wheel cars onto the sand and have been doing it since Model-T days.
Look at old silent movies and you'll see, once in a while, scenes of the
old 2wd cars being driven up and down the beaches. The beaches in
California that allow cars (only one or two that I'm aware of) have all
kinds of cars on them. Some beaches in Mexico have old Chevy
stationwagons driving up and down them peddling tacos and furniture,
hardly an exotic 4x4!
Bottom line... you don't need exotic 4x4 systems to drive on sandy
beaches, people have been driving on beaches (and yes, occasionally
getting stuck) since the days of Model-T Fords and will continue doing
so. Common sense and appropriate driving technique is all that's needed
in most sand situations.
Afterall, if the guy in his old Chevy can drive up and down the beach
while selling his tacos and furniture, a CR-V or RAV4 ought to be able
to do at least as well as a two-wheel drive Chevy stationwagon, wouldn't
you have to agree?
--
NOTE: To reply, remove the "NOSPAM" from my email address.
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL, C.A.P., KC6TAY
The Zen hotdog... make me one with everything!
Mitsuharu Hadeishi
Posting and emailing.
In article <5hlshq$n5r$1...@news.a1.nl>, w.j.ma...@a1.nl says...
>>Because of confusing terminology (real time 4WD rather than 4WD or AWD)
>>my question is: Will it run on 4WD at slow speed on snow or mud? Anyone
>>out there who have tested it on snow/mud at low speed (0-5MPH) please
>>enlighten me? Thanks.
>
>It will engage the rear axle only *when* and *after* slip occurs.
>This is an as crappy system as the V6 Explorers, and it degrades the
>definiation of AWD. Look at it as a fast acting part time 4wd, but it comes
>nowhere near full time 4wd.
>
>I believe the first reports already showed that the full time RAV4 happily
>plowed the sand and dirt, where the Honda got stuck. Real 4wd, either full
>time or part time engaged, is crucial when driving on the edge of traction,
>2wd doesn't get you anywhere, no matter how short the period of 2wd is; the
>driven wheels simply dig in before the other wheels can do their job.
>
>I wrote a short chapter on the subject of AWD/4wd/full time:
>
>http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm
Hi, I just read your chapter on AWD, Willem, and I just wanted to make a small
clarification/correction. First of all, AWD and full-time 4WD are orthogonal
concepts; AWD is more akin to something like an automatic center locker,
whereas full-time 4WD just means a system that can drive all four wheels at the
same time, all the time. The differences between AWD systems can be quite
vast, but in fact you can certainly have an AWD system which drives all four
wheels at the same time with some power---in fact most AWD systems I am aware
of are also full-time 4WD. It's just the CRV's system which is not.
For example, all Subaru AWD systems are either driving both axles 50%/50% all
the time (visco center diff manual tranny) or 90%/10% (multiplate-clutch
electronic center diff auto tranny). When any variation in wheel spin is
detected the system binds up and transfers torque---the Subaru system is one of
the rare beautifully-engineered systems that doesn't tend to cause problems
with excessive binding when cornering (provided all the tires are the same
size---even a slight variation in tire size can cause the center diff to bind
up perpetually, which could be a problem long-term). It DOES bind up when
cornering (providing extra stability in corners) but not excessively. So,
basically, the Subaru AWD system is both a full-time 4WD system AND an AWD
system, which is better than a Plain Jane full-time 4WD with open differentials
everywhere.
The CRV's system is quite different; it is 2WD most of the time, and only very
SLOWLY changes to 4WD. This speed difference is crucial, as it is what causes
the CRV to get stuck in sand. In the Outback (or any AWD Subaru) even a slight
difference in wheel rotation speed is enough to get the system to
engage---i.e., even if the front wheel just begins to spin at a different rate
from the rears for an instant---and since all four wheels get power all
the time anyway, the binding is there just to redirect additional torque in
case of spin. The CRV's system, on the other hand, has a significant time
delay, which evidently is too slow for any kind of dirt/sand conditions, and I
wouldn't trust it in the snow either. RAV4 is also full-time 4WD, like the
Subaru, but it has a manual center locker on the manual tranny, though their
auto tranny system is similar to the Subaru's. We've discussed this at length
before so I'll just leave it at that.
So, in short, you can have full-time 4WD, and you can have AWD, and you can
have both (and often do). I might point out that the Infiniti QX4's AWD system
also drive two wheels most of the time (the rears) but their AWD system binds
up instantly like the Subaru's, and thus it really should gives you the
advantages of a full-time 4WD in mud/snow/rain. The QX4's system is
instantaneous, unlike the CRV's, so I doubt it would get stuck in AWD mode (QX4
also has other modes, including part-time 4WD).
Mitsu
BryanDover
The CR-V does not have the low range 4WD that you are looking for...
As a matter of fact if you are REALLY looking for a SUV that will do it
all, stay away from the Honda...
If, in fact, you are like 98% of the American Sport-UTE owners, and
offroad is only during snowy conditions on non-challenging conditions
(serious, that is), I would think that the Honda would be the perfect
vehicle. It is attractively priced and will give you lots of value (and
resale value) for your money. Lots of moms and pops will be looking for
these "cute" cars for Johnny and Susie when they go off to college in a
few years...
good luck,
Bryan Dover
PS Expect to pay sticker.....
Mark Richards
BryanDover wrote:
good luck,
Bryan Dover
It is possible to buy below sticker. Especially today, on March 31.
(End of month, end of quarter, a Monday...) You can even get
significantly below sticker. I did it.
Mark
Bill Rees
BryanDover <bryan...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970330225...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> resale value) for your money. Lots of moms and pops will be looking for
> these "cute" cars for Johnny and Susie when they go off to college in a
> few years...
The CRV is a good alternative to the $30,000 SUV. It is simply a Civic
wagon with a 4WD system for the rain & snow. I don't think that you can
even begin to compare it to a 4,000 lb SUV. Actually, I'd love one of
these "cute", reliable cars as my daily driver since I cringe every time I
have to repair or fill up my S-10 Blazer.
Mark Conover
Speaking of 4wd on the sand .....
I had some recent experience up sandy washes in the
outback of Baja three days ago.
In a relatively new 4WD (Chevy Blazer) With low range
(but without limited slip differential due to some
mystical phenomenon of the GM ordering system)
1. I encountered soft sand rather rapidly in 2WD. On rear wheel
dug deep .... and the truck bottomed out with the
rear wheel spinning ... and the vehicle tilted so
that the opposite side front wheel was lifted out of
the sand ... so 4WD just meant that one front and one
rear wheel were uselessy spinning. Not much or a problem
as the high lift bumper jack got us going in minutes.
2. I encountered soft sand next in 4WD high. I didn't get stuck,
but the truck required an enormous ammount of push
to keep it going. I hjad it floored for most
or the 1/2 mile of sand. ANd it overheated (or nearly so)
THe moral of the story is that for soft sand driving
IE not Daytona beach, you really need
A. Limited slip rear end
B. Much torque (from low drive)
C. HIgh lift bumper jack for when the going gets rough
( and maybe a few boards)
Oh yes,
Low tire pressure (12 lbs) really helps in sand,
which is to say that other required equipment includes
a tire pressure gauge (cause you can't really judge a tire's
inflation when it's burried in the sand) ...
and a method for re-inflation (like a Spark Plug
inflator) for when (and if) you get back on the pavement
(cause 12lb inflated tires don't last for many miles
--
############### Mark D Conover ################################
>>>>>>>>>> DIgital Systems Design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > and World Exploration > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
in Real life ma...@netcom.com
SanFrancisco USA
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Debruyn
Was this the same road test where they hused a Kia Sportage to pull the
RAV out of several places where it got stuck??
Paul W Harvey
On Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:14:13 GMT, ma...@netcom.com (Mark Conover)
wrote:
-snip-
>THe moral of the story is that for soft sand driving
> IE not Daytona beach, you really need
> A. Limited slip rear end
> B. Much torque (from low drive)
> C. HIgh lift bumper jack for when the going gets rough
> ( and maybe a few boards)
I couldn't agree with you more, although as Jerry Bransford will point
out here in a minute, 2wd cars have been used on some types of sand
with success from their inception.
>Oh yes,
> Low tire pressure (12 lbs) really helps in sand,
> which is to say that other required equipment includes
> a tire pressure gauge (cause you can't really judge a tire's
> inflation when it's burried in the sand) ...
> and a method for re-inflation (like a Spark Plug
> inflator) for when (and if) you get back on the pavement
> (cause 12lb inflated tires don't last for many miles
The only thing I would add is that you need to be carefull not to let
too much air out of your tires. Air is one of the things that hold
the tires on the rims, if you let out too much air and try even a
mildly aggressive turn you may end up peeling a tire from its rim.
You should definitely air down though.
--Paul
Paul W Harvey
On 3 Apr 1997 22:46:34 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debruyn) wrote:
>Was this the same road test where they hused a Kia Sportage to pull the
>RAV out of several places where it got stuck??
No. The only two vehicles in the test were the RAV4 and the CRV.
I have read a few arcticles about the Sportage and it seems it does
just as well as the other mini-SUVs. The biggest problem I've heard
about them is lack of dealers making it harder to get waranty work
done.
--Paul