Honda CR-V, yay or nay?

[sciwizam]

My parents are looking at buying a 2011 Honda CR-V, and as cars are not my area of interest, I'm asking the Garage for it's opinion on the CR-V. It seems that the dealer was quoting ~21K for the LX. Also, this car will be driven mostly in New England. If there are any other suggestions, the budget is between 20-25K.

 

[punjabiplaya]

it's good enough to steal sales from the Element. Generally regarded as the best in that mini-ute category

 

[ShawnD1]

My parents are looking at buying a 2011 Honda CR-V, and as cars are not my area of interest, I'm asking the Garage for it's opinion on the CR-V. It seems that the dealer was quoting ~21K for the LX. Also, this car will be driven mostly in New England. If there are any other suggestions, the budget is between 20-25K.

Why do they want this vehicle?
How bad does the snow get down there? Honda and Toyota seem really shitty when it comes to AWD.

The CRV is a rock solid reliable vehicle and it sells a lot of units for a reason. My main concern would be how bad the performance is. The 0-60 is over 9 seconds. The power starved engine also makes it ridiculously hard to pass on the highway. It's hard to put into words how annoying it is to be stuck behind some lovely human going 50mph and I can't even pass him unless there's 20 miles of clearance.

 

[CrimsonWolf]

Look into a Subaru Forester? That'd be my guess.

I just bought a small SUV a couple months ago and did a bunch of research. Agreed with ShawnD1 on the CR-V... it's gotten great reviews but it was an automatic no-go for me with the weak 4 cylinder. No other engine options. They might not mind that though.

I wound up getting a RAV4. It's got one of largest cargo capacities of the small SUVs, drives relatively well, and the V6 has plenty of power.

If they're worried about snow, AWD, and whatnot the Subaru Forester might be the best option if they want something else to look at. There's a turbo option that makes it pretty peppy but that might be over what they want to spend. Even if they don't care about having a more power, the Forester might handle winter conditions better. I passed on it because it was a little smaller, only has a four-speed auto, and preferred a bigger V6 to a small turbo-ed four cylinder. Overall it seems like a another great vehicle though.

Thankfully, the small SUV market is highly competitive so there's plenty of good options depending on what they want.

 

[superccs]

Subaru Forrester /.

 

[drbrock]

my parents have a 2010 CRV and they think that is the best car they have owned so far. They get great gas mileage. The only complaint is the stiff seats and low power. My dad is a big man at 6'3 and he can easily get in and out of the car easy. We bought through the costco auto buying program and that came to be very cheap. Amex also has it but costco was cheaper at that time. Currently I am buying an acura and the amex beats the costco program by 1k. So def check out both.

 

[skyking]

your dad must have long legs
I'm 6'2" with a long body, and I cannot begin to drive one. I have to crane my neck to look under the visor at a traffic light. Other than that I have heard no complaints about it. We have the pilot because of the seating/view problem with the CR-V.

 

[PricklyPete]

For safe, reliable A to B transportation, the CRV is hard to beat.

 

[PricklyPete]

Look into a Subaru Forester? That'd be my guess.

I just bought a small SUV a couple months ago and did a bunch of research. Agreed with ShawnD1 on the CR-V... it's gotten great reviews but it was an automatic no-go for me with the weak 4 cylinder. No other engine options. They might not mind that though.

I wound up getting a RAV4. It's got one of largest cargo capacities of the small SUVs, drives relatively well, and the V6 has plenty of power.

If they're worried about snow, AWD, and whatnot the Subaru Forester might be the best option if they want something else to look at. There's a turbo option that makes it pretty peppy but that might be over what they want to spend. Even if they don't care about having a more power, the Forester might handle winter conditions better. I passed on it because it was a little smaller, only has a four-speed auto, and preferred a bigger V6 to a small turbo-ed four cylinder. Overall it seems like a another great vehicle though.

Thankfully, the small SUV market is highly competitive so there's plenty of good options depending on what they want.

I would say Forester as well...except they are likely getting an automatic, and the 4-spd unit in the Forester matched with a relatively week 4 cylinder is just tragic. The Forester is likely a more dynamic drive...but I doubt his parents care.

 

[exar333]

I loved everything about the CR-V (fiance was shopping around for a car earlier this year and we test drove one a couple times) except the engine. The car handled well for a "mini-ute" and everything was built extremely solid. If they put a turbo-4 or efficient V6 making peak ~210hp/200tq or so @ 2-3000rpm the vehicle would be much better. The low-end torque was terrible and the passing ability of the vehicle was pretty meh. A little more pep and this vehicle would be hands-down the best in it's class.

That said, you may want to get a CR-V now before Honda makes it over and it then it looks all fugly like the rest of their "refreshed" vehicles.

 

[krunchykrome]

2008 CRV EX AWD owner here; awesome car! It lacks power, but it's still 166hp which is more than enough. The AW works excellent despite what some may say. We got 3 feet of snow last year and I was driving around in the middle of the snow storm running errands. I didn't get stuck once.

 

[skyking]

2008 CRV EX AWD owner here; awesome car! It lacks power, but it's still 166hp which is more than enough. The AW works excellent despite what some may say. We got 3 feet of snow last year and I was driving around in the middle of the snow storm running errands. I didn't get stuck once.

The only time I really dislike the Honda AWD system is on mountain passes when you could go faster, but the AWD fades as you get above 30 and it is really a FWD vehicle after that. Around town it is great.

 

[evident]

fiance had a first gen CRV which was great for a mini ute. old roomate has the current gen one and it was pretty comfortable. has the same engine as my accord and probably weighs alot more, so acceleration would be my main concern.

 

[zsdersw]

Mazda CX-7.

 

[KIAman]

The Honda CRV is pretty much the best in its class. The new 2.4L engine is rated 180hp and has decent pep while providing great mileage.

You are not going to find a zippy mini-suv in this segment unless you opt to get a V-6 equipped RAV4 but you are going to pay about $5,000 premium and a reduction in MPG.

 

[exar333]

The Honda CRV is pretty much the best in its class. The new 2.4L engine is rated 180hp and has decent pep while providing great mileage.

You are not going to find a zippy mini-suv in this segment unless you opt to get a V-6 equipped RAV4 but you are going to pay about $5,000 premium and a reduction in MPG.

I don't argue that it's best in class, but the engine is not really "peppy" and the mileage is "good" not great. Those are absolutely the only two complaints about the car I can even think of.

 

[zsdersw]

Not a fan of how boring the CR-V is to drive, or the styling.. inside or out.

 

[The Stigenator]

May I suggest the Hyundai tucson.

The CRV is fine otherwise. I think value for money the Hyundai is better.

 

[CrimsonWolf]

I would say Forester as well...except they are likely getting an automatic, and the 4-spd unit in the Forester matched with a relatively week 4 cylinder is just tragic. The Forester is likely a more dynamic drive...but I doubt his parents care.

Just looked up a couple 0-60 mph times off of Consumer Reports. The Forester with the stock 4-cylinder and 4-speed auto clocks in at 10.4 seconds... ouch. The CR-V comes in better at 9.1 seconds.

The kicker with Honda is they have a really nice turbo 2.3L four cylinder for their Acura RDX. That'd be a great option for the CR-V. Why Honda why??

 

[exar333]

May I suggest the Hyundai tucson.

The CRV is fine otherwise. I think value for money the Hyundai is better.

The Tuscon is terrible. My fiance drove that for two blocks after driving the CRV and wanted to go back to the dealer ASAP. It looks nice, but has so much body roll and handles horribly. Terrible vehicle IMHO.

 

[zsdersw]

Just looked up a couple 0-60 mph times off of Consumer Reports. The Forester with the stock 4-cylinder and 4-speed auto clocks in at 10.4 seconds... ouch. The CR-V comes in better at 9.1 seconds.

The kicker with Honda is they have a really nice turbo 2.3L four cylinder for their Acura RDX. That'd be a great option for the CR-V. Why Honda why??

The RDX... only marginally less ugly than the CR-V.

 

[ShawnD1]

The kicker with Honda is they have a really nice turbo 2.3L four cylinder for their Acura RDX. That'd be a great option for the CR-V. Why Honda why??

Probably because turbo engines suck? They usually take premium gas. After normalizing for the added cost of premium fuel, it would get about the same gas mileage as a 1 ton truck pulling a horse trailer up hill.

I remember checking was the normalized gas mileage of the Civic Si was. After accounting for the cost of premium gas, it costs more to run than a V6 Accord

 

[zsdersw]

Probably because turbo engines suck? They usually take premium gas. After normalizing for the added cost of premium fuel, it would get about the same gas mileage as a 1 ton truck pulling a horse trailer up hill.

I remember checking was the normalized gas mileage of the Civic Si was. After accounting for the cost of premium gas, it costs more to run than a V6 Accord

A V6 Accord is going to be a lot less fun to drive than a Civic Si.

Turbo engines don't "suck" for the people who typically buy them; people who aren't really concerned with the cost of gas or fuel efficiency.

 

[KIAman]

I don't argue that it's best in class, but the engine is not really "peppy" and the mileage is "good" not great. Those are absolutely the only two complaints about the car I can even think of.

I understand what you are saying but you have to keep things in context. Compared to others in the same segment, the engine is peppy and the mileage is great. And like I said earlier, the only car, in the same segment, that really zooms is the v6 rav4.

 

[PricklyPete]

Probably because turbo engines suck? They usually take premium gas. After normalizing for the added cost of premium fuel, it would get about the same gas mileage as a 1 ton truck pulling a horse trailer up hill.

I remember checking was the normalized gas mileage of the Civic Si was. After accounting for the cost of premium gas, it costs more to run than a V6 Accord

The 2.0T in my wife's 3700lb sedan with AWD does not suck. We regularly get 32+ MPG on the highway with plenty of HP and a nice smack of ~260 ft/lbs of torque at 1500 RPMs.