CR-V shopping
Observer
is about reviews or comments for the features. What I want to know is
the comments about the mechanics of them. Is there any mechanical /
electrical weaknesses or things I should be wary of if I buy one...
ie: timing belt or chain, electrical wiring, transmission, etc.. .
Also anyone think a AWD in south Texas (Houston area) worth
considering? I'm thinking about high water or just a lot of rain not
snow or ice of course. Are the AWD reliable and do they require more
maintenance? And do they handle a lot better than FWD?
Sorry for all the questions but I'm still in learning and research
mode.
M.M.
> Considering buying a new 2010 CR-V but so far what I read on the net
Check out the CR-V forums at http://www.hondasuv.com. Look in the
2007-2008 sub-forum. There are several threads about the 2010's there.
TomP
developed and refined. If you drive mostly in town; the CR-v is a great
choice...
However, the ambient sound level when on the highway (driving 65~80 MPH)
can get a bit loud, depending on the road condition... after all, it's not
a luxury ride.
Make sure to drive the CR-v on the highway, and if possible on different
road surfaces.
Observer wrote:
--
Tp,
-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------
No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...
Dillon Pyron
>The 2010 CR-v is as reliable as an anvil. That is the breed is well
>developed and refined. If you drive mostly in town; the CR-v is a great
>choice...
>However, the ambient sound level when on the highway (driving 65~80 MPH)
>can get a bit loud, depending on the road condition... after all, it's not
>a luxury ride.
>Make sure to drive the CR-v on the highway, and if possible on different
>road surfaces.
Problem is the tires. Chunky tires make more noise. AND present
delamination problems (although not as much as a few years ago). Most
AWD and 4WD cars and light SUVs are now sold with a less OTR
aggressive tread design.
Tires dissapate heat by getting as much tread as possible exposed to
the air, and getting as much tread as possible on the pavement. Slicks
are great for that (although there are other advantages, like contact
surface for transfer of torque), but big chunks of rubber don't do as
good of a job. And radials don't like that.
But yes, the CR-V can be a noisy ride. My Fit, surprisingly, is much
queiter. Not as much as the Civic you'd get for the same price, but
more so than the CR-V you'd get for more money.
>
>Observer wrote:
>
>> Considering buying a new 2010 CR-V but so far what I read on the net
>> is about reviews or comments for the features. What I want to know is
>> the comments about the mechanics of them. Is there any mechanical /
>> electrical weaknesses or things I should be wary of if I buy one...
>> ie: timing belt or chain, electrical wiring, transmission, etc.. .
>>
>> Also anyone think a AWD in south Texas (Houston area) worth
>> considering? I'm thinking about high water or just a lot of rain not
>> snow or ice of course. Are the AWD reliable and do they require more
>> maintenance? And do they handle a lot better than FWD?
DO NOT drive thorugh high water, AWD or 4WD. I don't know if you hear
the LCRA commercials, but "turnaround, don't drown" is real. About
1/2 inch of moving water is death. In Houston, I've never seen "just"
2 inches standing. Look at how much of 10 and SW Freeway go under
water farily easily. TXDOT keeps building drains and they keep
flooding.
Other than that, what are you really looking for? Is a CR-V really
the answer? I've actually heard people say they buy a CR-V or RAV4 or
even Highlander because they're afraid of a crash with a dump truck.
Well, folks, if you get hit by a dump truck in a 'Burb, you are very
likely going to be carried off in the van marked "Coroner" or "ME".
>>
>> Sorry for all the questions but I'm still in learning and research
>> mode.
--
- dillon I am not invalid
"Always shoot first. At the very least you'll
distract the guy enough to make the second one count"
-- Lazurus Long
C. E. White
the CR-V. We have a friend who has one as well. The friend's CR-V has
been very reliable, but he says he wouldn't buy another one. His
biggest complaint is the seating position. He has a base model with
the non-power driver's seat. My biggest complaint about his CR-V was
the wind noise. It was among the noisest vehicles on the highway I
been in in a long time. For my Mother we decided against the CR-V
becasue of the cost. She defintiely wanted a power seat and preferred
leather. Unfortunately as soon as you looked for a CR-V equipped that
way, you also got a sun roof, a fancy radio, and other stuff she
didn't care about. This pushed the price up well beyond the other
vehicles we looked at (Toyota Highlander, Ford Edge). She ended up
getting the Highlander.
Ed
"Observer" <no...@void.com> wrote in message
news:jktte59nk7ne747pv...@4ax.com...
News
The CR-V is s short wheelbase, stiffly sprung car that is quite darty
and busy on the highway, especially over expansion joints.
Great on back roads though, and around town, as a hauler.
E. Meyer
On 11/10/09 6:21 AM, in article
BNudnTtGC46AxmTX...@speakeasy.net, "News" <Ne...@Groups.Name>
wrote:
Speaking as a CR-V owner, I don't agree with those assertions, at least not
when comparing the CR-V to other SUVs. The CR-V rides much more car-like
than my Pathfinder and I don't know what you mean by "darty". We've driven
it cross country several times at sustained highway speeds, 70 to 80 MPH.
It drives straight effortlessly. Nothing "darty" about it.
My only two complaints are the road noise (its tire noise transmitted
through the suspension, not wind) and the too small gas tank, both of which
seem to be Honda traits, not just with the CR-V.
>
> Great on back roads though, and around town, as a hauler.
That I agree with. Most versatile enclosed vehicle (open pickup still wins
this category) I've owned.
News
I'm also speaking as a CR-V owner of a 2005 SE ... after five years.
The highway ride was improved (less darty, less noise) after ditching
the Duelers that came on the car, but is still far less directionally
stable at highway speeds than my 100" wheelbase comparison ride.
The CR-V's issue is the steering -- overly sensitive at highway speeds.
Our Accord had variable assist steering, which the CR-V appears to lack.
E. Meyer
On 11/10/09 10:48 AM, in article
Cs2dndYocaDDBGTX...@speakeasy.net, "News" <Ne...@Group.Name>
wrote:
My CR-V is an '06. The steering is not any more sensitive at highway speeds
than any other car I've owned. In fact, its less sensitive than many of
them, including the '00 TL (which is an Accord with delusions of grandeur).
There was a TSB that applied to the '05 & earlier 2nd gen CR-Vs to take the
front suspension apart and reposition the spring in the upper seat. You
might want to look into that.
News
That was for the "PTTR" Pull To The Right issue, which we don't have.
Make no mistake, I like the CR-V, I just don't prefer to drive it on
long distance / highway trips.
E. Meyer
On 11/10/09 11:00 AM, in article
n-adnSKM-ca3AWTX...@speakeasy.net, "News" <Ne...@Group.Name>
wrote:
Frankly, its not my first choice for a long distance drive either, but
because of the excessive road noise rather than the steering.
Observer
<cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>When we recently shopped for a new vehicle for my Mother we looked at
>the CR-V. We have a friend who has one as well. The friend's CR-V has
>been very reliable, but he says he wouldn't buy another one. His
>biggest complaint is the seating position. He has a base model with
>the non-power driver's seat. My biggest complaint about his CR-V was
>the wind noise. It was among the noisest vehicles on the highway I
>been in in a long time. For my Mother we decided against the CR-V
>becasue of the cost. She defintiely wanted a power seat and preferred
>leather. Unfortunately as soon as you looked for a CR-V equipped that
>way, you also got a sun roof, a fancy radio, and other stuff she
>didn't care about. This pushed the price up well beyond the other
>vehicles we looked at (Toyota Highlander, Ford Edge). She ended up
>getting the Highlander.
>
>Ed
>
Ed, just from research on line, I began to narrow it down to CR-V or
Highlander. I realize they aren't exactly the same but one of my main
concerns is reliability as I will eventually retire and be on a fixed
income so I don't want to spend a lot on repairs if possible. The
only negatives I see about the Highlander is the initial price and
tire size. I checked one shop and 19" tires are special order (3 or
so days). I guess tho, one doesn't change tires too often so that
inconvenience might not be too great compared to a lot of repairs in
the shop. I once drove a CR-V (2008 model) and I frankly thought it
was a bit underpowered tho I understand the newer ones have 14 more
horsepower but not sure how much difference that will make upon
accelerating, entering a highway. The stuff I read says it's more
about torque not horsepower for that so I don't know. I never test
drove or rode in a Highlander so my knowledge is strictly what I read
from others. Thank you Ed and everyone else.
E. Meyer
"Observer" <no...@void.com> wrote:
Highlander vs. CRV is really an apples to oranges comparison. CRV should be
compared to the 4 cylinder RAV-4 and Highlander competes with the Pilot if
you want to make a fair comparison.
Observer
Observer
wrote:
>On 11/10/09 4:14 PM, in article dtojf59tu29dcdv98...@4ax.com,
I know that's why I said in my post above "I realize they aren't
exactly the same...." so I have to agree with you. I was just
trying to compare their reliability followed by maintenance costs tho
the maintenance costs may be unfair too. In any case, I know you are
correct but make allowances for my weak question <grin>. Thank you.
C. E. White
"E. Meyer" <epme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:C7203EC2.137A9%epme...@gmail.com...
I suppose you are technically correct, but that is not the way we
looked at it when we were shopping. From a price standpoint, the
Highlander and CR-V were much closer than the CR-V and RAV4. The RAV4
with similar equipment is much less expensive than the CR-V. The
Highlander my Mother ended up buying was over $1500 less than the
price we were quoted for a CR-V. The problem with the CR-V was how
they all seem to be equipped. The base Highlander my Mother purchased
included everything she wanted except leather seats. I talked her out
of those. Her Highlander has a very nice power drivers seat, alloy
wheels, a third row seat, A/C, power window, power locks, power this,
power that.....everythig she had on her wish list except the leather.
The CR-V we got a quote on had a power drivers seat, leather, a sun
roof (that was not wanted), electronic temperature control (another
unwanted item), and a much higher price tag. We checked with two Honda
dealers and it seemed you had two choices, a stripped down CR-V with
manual seats or an expensive model with a bunch of stuff my Mother did
not care about. Even the stripped down model cost about the same as
the base Highlander and much more than a base RAV4. The Highlander had
more room, rode better, was much quieter, and cost less....seemed like
a no brainer to us. I am sure the CR-V would get better gas mileage,
but my Mother only drives about 6,000 miles a year. I doubt she would
ever save enough on gas to justify the higher priced CR-V on that
basis. In the end, the CR-V was never even close. The Pilot was in a
completely different category in terms of price. The Pilots we looked
at were much higher priced than the Highlanders. Maybe Honda has a
stripped down Pilot version that can compete on price with a
Highlander, but we never saw one. The cheaspest Pilots we saw were
$7,000+ more than the Highlander my Mother purchased. I like Pilots,
and would even consider buying one for myself, but as far as my Mother
was concerned, they were in a whole different catregory.
Ed
E. Meyer
On 11/12/09 6:40 AM, in article hdgvua$kol$1...@news.eternal-september.org, "C.
E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
I guess it all depends on where you are. Around here, its the other way
around. The Honda dealers are huge and any of them will have all possible
combinations of accessories/trim lines & the Toyota dealers seem to be the
ones with only excessively tricked out stuff, little to pick from and all
with those irritating dealer added accessories stickers for $500 wheel
locks, pin stripes, etc.
The Japanese car makers do seem to have strange packaging ideas. When I
shopping at Nissan last year, to get NAV you had to buy a package that had
an additional $2,000 in unwanted stuff, besides the $2000 for the NAV
itself. They don't have a concept of picking and choosing options like the
American car makers (used to?) let you do.
TomP
<snip>
got a sun roof, a fancy radio, and other stuff she didn't care about.
This pushed the price up
<snip>
Yea, sunroof; who thought that was ever a good idea?
I will not buy a car with glass, fixed or moveable, mounted on a
horizontal surface.
News
> "C. E. White" wrote:
> <snip>
>
> got a sun roof, a fancy radio, and other stuff she didn't care about.
> This pushed the price up
>
> <snip>
>
> Yea, sunroof; who thought that was ever a good idea?
> I will not buy a car with glass, fixed or moveable, mounted on a
> horizontal surface.
Suit yourself. The Honda versions fitted since 1988 don't leak.
Dillon Pyron
>
>
>
>On 11/10/09 6:21 AM, in article
>BNudnTtGC46AxmTX...@speakeasy.net, "News" <Ne...@Groups.Name>
>wrote:
>
>> Dillon Pyron wrote:
>>> Thus spake TomP <roa...@socal.rr.com> :
>>>
<major snip>
>>
>> The CR-V is s short wheelbase, stiffly sprung car that is quite darty
>> and busy on the highway, especially over expansion joints.
>
>Speaking as a CR-V owner, I don't agree with those assertions, at least not
>when comparing the CR-V to other SUVs. The CR-V rides much more car-like
>than my Pathfinder and I don't know what you mean by "darty". We've driven
>it cross country several times at sustained highway speeds, 70 to 80 MPH.
>It drives straight effortlessly. Nothing "darty" about it.
The CR-V is "darty" and "skittish" mainly due to it's short WB. Which
is more noticeable on grooved roads. But the above two terms are
relative. What is "darty" to one person may be "quick" to another. I
road race for a guy who changes the WB of the car (Atlantic) depending
on the track. Long, gentle track, long wheelbase. Tight, twisty
track, short WB.
>
>My only two complaints are the road noise (its tire noise transmitted
>through the suspension, not wind) and the too small gas tank, both of which
>seem to be Honda traits, not just with the CR-V.
>
>>
>> Great on back roads though, and around town, as a hauler.
>
>That I agree with. Most versatile enclosed vehicle (open pickup still wins
>this category) I've owned.
>
News
Safe to say he wouldn't choose the SWB F-Atlantic for use on an Interstate.
Dillon Pyron
Nope. Speaking of long WB, back in the mid-70s when I was drag
racing, a particularly long fueler was 220-230 inches. Now they run
over 300. Fuel Aletered had roughly 115 inch WB and were incredible
to watch.
No, SWB would scare me.
TOTALLY OT speaking of short wheel base on the street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dGoZs_tZh8
--
- dillon I am not invalid
"Get a shot off fast. This upsets him long enough to
let you make your second shot perfect."
-- Lazurus Long
tww1491
"Dillon Pyron" <invalid...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3se1g59d9i5fk6748...@4ax.com...
The Sunbeam Tiger I had years ago was somewhat darty...86" wheelbase and the
modified Ford 260 did'nt help either when you got on it. Great in
autocrosses though. Compared with that, our 09 CRV is a pussycat.