One thing that sets TTAC apart is our appreciation for the kind of cars that most people would write off as “boring”. Part of it is born from our commitment to serving our readers – more often than not, there is a strong desire to read about cars one would actually purchase, rather than just automotive pornography featuring the latest supercars. The other half of it is a bit more selfish. The cars that drive the industry (no pun intended); the Corollas, Camrys, Accords and Escapes may not be terribly thrilling to drive (Jack will beg to differ), but they have their own merits, even if they tend to be sneered at by most of the enthusiast press. Case in point, the Honda CR-V.
While Tim Cain was able to test a top-spec Honda CR-V Touring, mine was the equivalent to a CRV EX (known as the SE in Canada). Neverthless, my assesment of the CR-V was the same as Tim’s, even though my example lacked a sunroof, leather interior or some of the other touches that are found on competitors
The CR-V is certainly not the most exciting small utility vehicle on the market today, nor is it the only one capable of cramming a shocking amount of humankind and stuff into a small space. But it does most things better than most of its potential competitors.
The CR-V doesn’t handle like a Mazda CX-5, have the quirky appeal and sophisticated AWD of a Subaru Forester, the off-road cred of a Jeep Cherokee or the high-end tech of a Ford Escape. It’s not much to look at outside, and the interior, while improved in terms of cabin materials, is arguably a step back from the version first introduced in 2012. The new touch screen system looks as dated as the non-touch unit in the first generation Acura RDX, the menus are not intuitive and the tiny buttons are a hassle to operate. The seats are on the wrong side of firm.
On the other hand, the CR-Vs rap for being a boring drive is unfounded. It’s not thrilling, but the steering is decently weighted and fairly accurate, the brakes are linear and strong and the CVT transmission is a great match to the 2.4L four-cylinder engine. I couldn’t see myself buying one ever, but a week with this trucklet immediately opened my eyes as to why Honda sells over 300,000 annually.
The current generation CR-V is without a doubt one of the best packaged cars in the history of the automobile. The H-point is just about perfect, making for one of the most natural ingress/egresses you can find in a new vehicle. The ride height is just high enough, the flat floor in the rear means that three adults can sit in relative comfort in the rear and with the seats in place, there’s still 37 cubic feet of cargo room.
Most brilliant is the load floor. At 5’10 and a 32 inch inseam, the cargo floor hits just at my knee. It may seem like an inconsequential detail, but the difference in ease of loading is immeasurable. Loading anything from grocery bags to strollers to walkers is made so much easier. If the seats need to go down, all it takes is one tug of the strap-like lever and the rear row folds instantly. I’d be willing to bet that those two features, demo’d on the showroom floor by a minimally trained salesman, do more to sell the CR-V than any advanced powertrain, AWD-system or infotainment package. The well-known virtues of Honda reliability and resale value don’t hurt either.
Unlike most enthusiasts, I don’t reflexively hate the CUV. I think they offer a lot of value and practicality in the real world of boring commutes, errands, carpooling and recreation activities, and they’ve gotten to the point where buying one doesn’t necessarily mean abandoning the idea of having fun behind the wheel (see: CX-5, Juke ). The CR-V wouldn’t necessarily be my choice in the segment, but it would be the one I’d recommend to somebody who needs to ask for advice on what car to buy. After all, 300,000 people can’t be wrong.
“After all, 300,000 people can’t be wrong”
For all the criticism the CR-V receives, Honda America is still laughing all the way to the bank.
Those 300,000+ bought the car they wanted, and each evolutionary generation, Honda attempts to get closer to the ideal of what a customer wants in a CUV.
Why would Honda, a company with a clear aversion to the “Number One At All Costs” philosophy that afflicts Toyota, Ford, and GM, be laughing at them?
“After all, 300,000 people can’t be wrong”
At 21k to 24k for a 4 banger CR-V, which by American 78mph average highway standards, over not-so-perfect roads, it’s a sensible if compromised choice for those that HAVE to have a CUV.
At anything north of 25k, it’s a fast failing proposition.
At anything north of 30k equipped in Cain Trim, it’s idiots-apply-only, as there are far plusher, safer, roomier, quieter, more powerful, more refined, all-around-better choices (e.g. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4×4 Laredo for UNDER 31k plus TTL new w/Pentastar & 8 speed).
what about people wanting a reliable car and able to drive it 15 years without major repairs and then still sell it for a decent price?
BINGO! We’re at 16 years and 283,000 miles. Original clutch, wheel bearings, engine, a/c, struts, AWD, etc.
Second best car I’ve ever owned. First was an ’87 Accord that last I saw had 325K miles on it. Still like this ‘V better.
Hate that I can’t buy another with a manual transmission. Even better would be a small TDI.
I checked. The rest of the world can get manual transmissions and small turbo diesels. America – the land of the free (not really).
First of all, a Grand Cherokee, though I LIKE them more than the CR-V, is a terrible long-term bet.
Second, if a person wanted the equipment levels of a GC Laredo, they wouldn’t be ponying up for a leather ‘n Nav CR-V, they’d buy the cloth and base radio CR-V for $23k or whatever. People buy $30k CR-Vs because they want the equipment in them, and to get the same (okay, more) equipment in the GC you’re around $40k, because you’re paying for all that fancy 4WD stuff few really need. And a GC will be much less desirable around town/in the city due to its bigger form factor.
Basically, you’ve told someone who wanted a spicy tuna roll they’re better off with a Big Mac because it’s more calories for their dollar.
A new Jeep Grand Cherokee is waaaay more refined than a CR-V.
Driving them back to back is like driving a proper Mercedes Benz (which the JGC shares DNA with, coincidentally) vs. a…well, a CR-V.
Your Big Mac vs Spicy Tuna Roll analogy doesn’t work, Chris.
I also believe this gen JGC will hold up relatively well long-term, though I’ll concede an advantage to the very proven reliable & durable Honda CR-V (one of Consumer Reports most consistently reliable vehicles a decade running now) in the sheer minimum # of repairs as a statistical matter over life of vehicle.
If the cars will be reliable you know in 15 years. Meanwhile we have to use proven track records and Honda (or almost any OEM) beats Chryler in that department.
Bad OEM admit they used to have problems, but NOW they make good cars. And they say the same thing every year. I believe it once I see 15 year old cars in relatively good shape with happy owners.
“Bad OEM admit they used to have problems, but NOW they make good cars.”
This has been the refrain from VW/Audi fanboys for the past 10 years. I own an Audi, but still find this amusing.
Come on, now. I like the GC a lot better than the CR-V, but coming up with one equipped anywhere close to that $31k CR-V is going to cost you over $45k MSRP.
I can buy a JGC 4X4 Laredo right now for a smidge under 31k (I am actually confident I could work to a smidge over 29k if I really tried).
No, it’s not similarly equipped than the CRV that’s got every option, but it’s twice the vehicle in terms of substance.
Throw some aftermarket leather seats in the JGC ($1,200) and remote start for $300, and even without useless gadgets that the CR-V has, it’s more compelling to anyone who cares about substance over form.
Selling a notoriously shoddy Chrysler against a 4 cylinder Honda on purchase price alone? Why stop there? So long as upkeep and depreciation don’t exist you may as well go full Jalopnik and look at 5 year old V8 Cayennes and Benz GLs too.
No argument that the JGC is a nice car for the money but that isn’t even close to Honda money.
Why buy a new loaded 33k Honda CR-V when you can buy a 2 year old Pagani Zonda R with 2,200 miles CPO with a 20 year/300,000 miles bumper-to-bumper warranty for the same price?
Sure you can. Unfortunately in the real world, Jeep dealers don’t seem to be wheeling and dealing, unless it is a 4×2 in some fugly color.
Southfield Jeep-Chrysler, bro.
Not only is that a solid pride for a 4×4 Laredo, I could get into a fairly loaded (X) JGC with a sticker of 40k for around 34plus TTL.
That’s without true employee pricing, too. True employee pricing would shave another $800 to $1,200 off those prices, and make the lease payment on the X JGC lower than most CR-Vs.
You said 29k, now it’s 34k plus TTL and other assorted dealer crap. Sure, whatever.
Open your ears, Cochise.
I’m speaking about two very different trim levels.
One is 4×4 Laredo with cloth seats and standard equipment, the other is a X Trim Limited (they called this the 70th Anniversary Edition back in 2013).
One MSRPs for about 34k, the other for around 40k (okay, I think closer to 39k).
I’m too lazy to look up EXACT prices.
> I’m too lazy to look up EXACT prices.
Of course you are, now we are getting somewhere.
I won’t even start on TCO or lease costs of a CRV vs a JGC, that’s something you can look up too when you are not feeling so lazy.
You probably don’t even know what a Buyer’s Order is or why an executed one is critical so why am I even having dialogue with you?
Go enjoy your CR-V. If you see a JGC or Durango approaching fast in rear view mirror on highway move over quickly (trust me).
> Go enjoy your CR-V. If you see a JGC or Durango approaching fast in rear view mirror on highway move over quickly (trust me).
What, you are gonna ram Hondas with your Jeeps?
Just because someone else finds some other brand to be a better value and calls you out on your rather dubious pricing claims doesn’t mean you can rear-end them.
But then you wouldn’t have the CR-V’s upper level equipment, reliability, resale, and flingability.
Comparing it to the JGC is nonsense. Maybe the Cherokee, but there the CR-V is actually prettier.
“But then you wouldn’t have the CR-V’s upper level equipment, reliability, resale, and flingability.
Comparing it to the JGC is nonsense. Maybe the Cherokee, but there the CR-V is actually prettier.”
Cool story.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/07/review-2011-jeep-grand-Cherokee/
Review: 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee
By Jack Baruth on July 2, 2010
“The new Pentastar V-6 is the engine the Grand Cherokee has needed for eighteen years. It’s an oversquare engine, revs with alacrity, and returns 23mpg in RWD variants. It has more than enough power off-road and on fast roads. The only reason to choose the cylinder-deactivating HEMI would be to bump the tow rating from 5000 to 7400 pounds; the Pentastar is that good.
Nor does the chassis let the motor down. It’s possible to have your JGC completely optimized for on-road use; in addition to the RWD model, there’s a no-low-gear, no-touch AWD system available. Either can be had with 20″ wheels and reasonably sticky rubber. The 17″ and 18″-wheeled off-road variants, however, can still hustle on-road. It’s possible to easily double posted corner speeds and tuck into the triple digits between turns on twisty two-lanes. I’ve been on BMWCCA “fast road drives” where this JGC would have been twenty miles ahead by lunchtime. Don’t expect a Chevy Traverse or RX350 to come close to the Grand Cherokee on a twisty road.
If you have a Land Rover LR4 and an Acura MDX in your garage, and you don’t require a third row of seats, you can send them both to the auction and replace them with this Grand Cherokee. It’s that good. “
Wow. So much short term thinking.
If you only want the vehicle for a few years, and don’t mind taking a huge loss on it, then maybe a GC makes sense. Longer than that and the GC is just a hole in the ground that you pour money into.
If you want a long term vehicle, the GC isn’t the worst thing you can buy, but between the GC and the CRV, There’s no question which is the better buy.
Why: Reliability
GC LTQI reliability score 52.1 (47.9% have issues)
CRV LTQI reliability score 77.9 ( 22.1% have issues)
(Note, the CRV has one of the highest scores of all CUV models)
The GC has 216% more powertrain defects than a CRV.
http://tradeinqualityindex.com/vehicles/Jeep_Grand_Cherokee.html
http://tradeinqualityindex.com/vehicles/Honda_CR-V.html
>”No, it’s not similarly equipped than the CRV that’s got every option, but it’s twice the vehicle in terms of substance.”
No, **its actually less than half the CR-V** in terms of substance.
The GJC incurs powertrain defects at a rate of 216% the rate of the CR-V.
While the GJC is not one of the worst things available today, (Jeep Compass), Its pretty terrible compared to a CR-V.
http://tradeinqualityindex.com/vehicles/Honda_CR-V.html
http://tradeinqualityindex.com/vehicles/Jeep_Grand_Cherokee.html
Politics? Obviously, 300,000+ are wrong a majority of the time.
I agree with your statement in general, but I would say that $25K for a box of loose nuts and bolts and a sound recording of twin leafblowers is over the top. And, the Jeep Compass is a better buy even.
The LTQI report labels the Jeep Compass is a “red” model. That’s red as in “danger”.
Its reliability index score is 10.9. That’s 10.9 out of 100.0.
That’s not just a bad score, it’s appalling.
Its one of the worst score’s available in ANY class.
http://tradeinqualityindex.com/vehicles/Jeep_Compass.html
At this point, they own the bank. I’m pleased with my 2014. I thought the Escape was a better vehicle, but I’m not doing Ford’s beta testing for them.
“Ford’s beta testing”
You have no idea how right you are. That Escape is a POS. If I could light my brother’s Escape on fire and get Ford to foot the bill, I would. Over 5 major recalls and counting.
Looks like Ford is starting to sounds like a Honda or Toyota with all the recalls.
Now that’s just crazy-talk
Except Fords are 30% to 50% lower in long term quality to start with.
What? I had a 2014 Escape Titanium and it was wonderful. No problems, fully loaded, and rode well. Wouldn’t pick a Jeep over it at all.
I wasn’t even aware that enthusiasts hate the crv. I mean, it’ll get some shrugs, but I think you might be investing too much energy in supposing a contrary opinion. Im a stick shift wagon guy too, so I’d think it would be my circle that felt that way.
The crv is an adequate vehicle with excellent packaging.
Based on my experience, I’ve always felt the CR-V always felt a little too utilitarian for my liking. The interior, even in EX-L trim, does not feel particularly luxurious. The fit and finish was however very good and the ergonomics and space utilization is simply unbeatable. Rear seat access is great because of the ride height, and the trunk lift over is very low. I can see why people like these cars.
That utilitarian CR-V is an easy ride to keep clean when you are driving it daily AND camping with it on the weekends. I wish I could get it with rubber mats but the 1999 ‘V carpet is pretty basic and easy to clean.
I just feel bad getting a $45K whatever dirty inside and out in the woods.
Well put together cuv, it sells to all levels of buyers. Yet the cost cutting in this vehicle is still there in every way. A couple things that just bug the crap out of me. The center air vents cannot be turned off and you have to get leather seats to get duel climate control. I thought Honda would upgrade the interior contents to be inline with the Accord. The inability to shut off the center vents is across the Honda line. If you want a Honda product, you have to jump up to the Acura line for a non watered down interior.
My Ridgeline’s central vents completely turn off when I press the “RECIRC” button. That’s rather stranger that the CRV’s will not
Yes, they cannot be turned off. Maybe the Pilot has that feature.
The ’99 ‘V center vents go off when I put the air on the floor or defrost or press the recirc button. There is not a button or wheel to close the vents however I can aim the up and keep the air off of my face.
I find in our car we seem to mostly use the air in the face setting (summer) and the windshield/floor split in the winter. Not much else.
Yup, like Carrera said… just hit recirc with the fan off. Presto, no air movement. Since that results in rather quick window fogging and a stale smelling interior, Honda defaults to letting a bit of fresh air flow through. Once you understand the logic it’s hard to argue with.
This does not take to much critical thinking. Center air vents CANNOT be individually turned off. If you do not want to change the ac/heat settings, most Honda products outside of acura cannot be turned off. It a just a way for Honda to save a few pennies on each car. Go check out th crv if you want to understand what of been saying. Then go out Subaru, Acura, and other brands.
Just as a counterpoint, Nickleback is hugely successful – sales aren’t a definitive indicator of quality.
That said, I don’t absolutely despise the CR-V. It feels like a Honda, I appreciate Honda’s desire to make even their most mundane vehicles at least unassumingly, pleasantly competent, if not exciting. I’m annoyed though, that if you want a 5-door Honda without extraneous ground clearance, there’s nothing between the Fit and Odyssey.
“…people tend to be really similar in their vulgar and prurient and stupid interests and wildly different in their refined and moral and intelligent interests.”
-David Foster Wallace in “E Unibus Pluram”
Therefore, Nickelback, CRVs, McDonalds, etc…
Simple pleasures are not made less by the existence of sophisticated, esoteric pleasures.
Sales are an indicator of *perceived value*, though.
People really like Nickelback’s music, a whole lot of them.
People really like CR-Vs, a whole lot of them.
They *keep* liking them, too, which is a good trend for “quality”, as well.
(Whereas a lot of people like a Volkswagen.
Once.)
What is the recidivism rate on CRV purchasing? Are 300,00 wrong multiply times, or are 300,000 newly wrong each year?
And, where do they all go? I rarely see an older CRV. When I worked in car rental, I saw them all the time in service bays. The outsourced CVT was supposed to have ameliorated a substantial number of the problems.
When did they put CVT transmissions in CR-Vs?
Honda CR-V
It’s OK…
… and all the other mommies/my sister/the girls I work with drive them
=300,000 sales
300,000 people can’t be wrong?
Counterpoint: GM sold 600,000 Cavaliers and 800,000 Malibus under various badges between 2002 and 2003.
“10,150,000 GM J platform cars were sold across eleven marques on six continents from 1982 through 1997”- Wikipedia
Geez, you’d think you’d still see more then a few still driving around
The newest J-Cars are still 10 years old, and may only break into the four figures for value. As much as plenty of them were perfectly adequate cars, capable of running far longer than most people would want to spend with one, it doesn’t take much to incur a bill equal to the value of the car, where the owner decides to scrap it and move on to something else.
My landlord and my suite-mate, and a friend’s sister drive J-cars. The latter two are completely abused and unmaintained, and one of those has over 360,000 km on it. The ultimate cockroach car.
You nailed it Preludacris — the ultimate roach car. I’ve owned and fixed up several and they’re great little cars. These days you normally see them plastered in shitty stickers and driven by a Juggalo who never changes the oil.
You know, if you start looking around, you’ll be surprised how many of these J cars are still around. They’re background noise on the street but they’re everywhere. Usually in pretty sad shape but still moving along, especially here in Indiana where there are no inspections and CELs are laughed at.
I have a lot of respect for them as durable beaters.
In the land of CARB smog checks, I haven’t seen a J-car in years. Pretty remarkable vanishing act, considering they were still popular rental cars ten years ago.
There are none left here in the land of salt and an annual safety inspection either.
But that said, they did seem to last longer on average than most of the “reliable” Japanese competition did.
You’ve got to let this meme die, even in salty central NY the 90-93 accords outnumber the tauri, cavaliers, luminas of similar years combined. Yes Hondas get rear wheel arch rust, but the drivetrains and peripherals seem to last longer. 92-96 camrys have Honda drive train and accessory durability with superior corrosion protection. How about early 90s VWs? Long gone, mk2 jettas rust a lot worse than any 90s Honda IMO.
Our safety inspection is tougher than yours, especially when it comes to rust. No sharp edges, absolutely NO holes. That rusty wheel lip on your Honda is an inspection failure, and no, you can’t just bondo it up. You are looking at $1500 bill to get a $1500 car to pass inspection. Off to the scrapyard it goes. Very efficient this. Many get junked for rusty brake and fuel lines too – my friend’s ’04 Accord V6 got an almost $2500 bill from the dealer for that one plus an EGR valve when it was 8 years old. He fixed it, then traded the car for a new Optima.
Trust me on this. They are GONE. Nearly any last century Japanese car that is still on the road in Maine has not been here since new, or it has 10K miles on it. I can’t remember the last time I saw a 90’s Subaru, and those things were absolutely everywhere here.
The Joy of living in the only state in New England without inspections, Connecticut. We only care about emissions here.
Why would I take car buying advice from someone that doesn’t even know enough to live some place that you don’t just endure several months a year?
Why would I take car buying adv1ce from someone that doesn’t even know enough to live some place that you don’t just endure several months a year?
“background noise on the street”. Perfect analogy. I might have borrow it someday.
The ’87-’00 GM car durability hierarchy goes:
H>B>D>C>A>Z>E>Y>W>J>K>G>F>>U>L>P>>>>>>>>>>N>>>V.
What are the Y, L, P, and V-bodies?
H: FWD LeSabre/Park Avenue/Bonneville
B: RWD full size platform
D: Bro-ham/93-96 Fleetwood Brougham
C: Uh…FWD 98? I dunno
A: Celebrity/Century/Ciera/6000
Z: Saturn small car
W: Impala/Grand Prix/Regal/Century (97-on)/Cutlass Supreme/Intrigue(?)
J: Cavalier/Sunfire
K: Eldorado?
G: Aurora?
F: Camaro/Firebird
U: Uplander/Montana SV6/Terraza
N: Malibu/Grand Am/Achieva/Skylark
The Y is the Corvette, P is the Fiero, L is the Beretta/Corsica, and V is the Catera.
@Lie2Me: And yet they still went bankrupt.
Wow.
The CRVEX is basically the Big Mac of automobiles. To each his own, I guess, but the CRVEX and its ilk are doing a good job diminishing the choices that car enthusiasts have to drive though.
This is such a dumb argument. Sales of cars like this allow companies to gamble on niche enthusiast vehicles in the first place and always have. We are in an automotive golden age where cars have more performance, safety, features, refinement, and yes driving pleasure than EVER. GTI, Focus/Fiesta ST, BRZ/FR-S, Corvette, Mustang, Camaro, Challenger, etc… All with performance that would shame almost anything comparable from even just 10 years ago.
“Sales of cars like this allow companies to gamble on niche enthusiast vehicles in the first place and always have.”
I very much agree with this statement.
You too had a much more in depth discussion without me, but in the case of Honda success in the bread and butter models helps pay for things like S2000, CR-Z, Ridgeline, and probably lower volume things like Civic/Accord coupe.
I am not particularly familiar with the operation of auto companies, but at the large companies for whom I have worked, each project is evaluated independently and must pass its own projected ROI test to be approved. If the project cannot pass the test, its funds would be used for a safer, profitable project, if available, or more likely returned to shareholders through stock buybacks or dividends. Rational companies should be investing more in safe, mainstream vehicles and less in vanity projects targeted towards enthusiasts, rather than submitting to the argument that they are already profitable and may as well dump some money down the FR-S hole.
Really? What enthusiast vehicles is Honda gambling on due to the CRVEX? The answer is none. Enthusiast vehicles exist because a few manufacturers want to service that niche market, not because their CUV offerings graciously allow them to do so. Honda and Toyota have no such cars, having chosen to abandon that market years ago. GM none but the niche CTS-V, Camaro, Corvette and SS.
VW won’t even give us the upcoming performance Golf wagon. Nissan is making performance versions of the Juke but not Sentra or Versa.
So to get a performance car now, you either need to be comfortable looking like you’re going through a mid-life crisis, spend premium dollars on a premium brand, or get into a hot hatch. No doubt, performance cars would be much further along but for the CUV craze. To suggest otherwise is what’s dumb.
You are aware that the sports car market died decades before CUVs came on the scene in significant numbers?
Yeah, Honda really only has the Civic Si and NSX but so what? Toyota has the FR-S and Lexus performance cars and their are plenty of options from other companies. Sporty cars never sold in huge numbers and I am not sure where you are getting that idea. To blame the CUV as responsible for the death of sporty cars is ridiculous.
What exactly are you being denied that you think the CUV is killing off?
Well, as my grampy used to say, you can’t anticipate invention. Since there’s been no real R&D in the performance car class, we’ll never know what’s being denied.
The 2015 Civic Si shouldn’t even be mentioned in a performance car discussion. It has only 8 horsepower more than the Civic Si of 10 years ago and gets only 2 mpg better. The milquetoast FR-S has no real powerplant and has been on the TTAC Dead Pool list since, what, a year after it came out?
The GTI, WRX, Mazdaspeed 3 and Focus ST mop the floor with it. It’s not meant to be a competitive vehicle in its class. It a cynical ploy to get a few sales on the Si’s past reputation.
So basically, R&D dollars have not gone into enthusiast vehicles like they would have but-for the growth in the CUV segment (and SUV segment before that). Companies go for the low hanging fruit — low customer expectations that consider a vehicle like the CRVEX perfectly adequate.
So basically you want auto companies to waste money investing in cars that wouldn’t sell so that you have more options.
No R&D in the performance car class!? Are you freaking joking? Cars have INSANE amounts of performance and HP now, PLUS good fuel efficiency, safety, and features. If anything profits on bread and butter segments like CUVs has fueled that. Did you also complain that the sales of Camrys, Accords, LTDs, Taurus, Malibu, etc… was distracting companies from performance cars? Unfortunately for you automotive corporations are in the business of making money and not cater to the whims of auto enthusiasts that only buy vehicles used.
“So basically you want auto companies to waste money investing in cars that wouldn’t sell so that you have more options….No R&D in the performance car class!? Are you freaking joking?”
A little contradictory? If performance cars are a waste of money, then your second sentence would be lip service. But can you give us examples of what you think have been some major developments over the last decade in terms of vehicle performance? Be it engine, chassis or transmissions.
It just seems to be that the mainstream performance models that normal people can afford, even good ones like the VW GTI, are only slightly better than they were 10 years ago. I don’t think anyone would argue a current Mark VII GTI is not a good car, but they also wouldn’t be able to argue that it’s that much better than a 2006 Mark V GTI. It’s better, but not 10 years worth of better.
Take a 2005 Mustang GT and 2015 Mustange GT to the track to see what happens. Also, try syncing your iPod in the 2005 and see what happens. Get in a crash in each and see what happens.
What makes you think companies should invest more in performance cars rather than CUVs? What are you smoking and can I have some?
“Take a 2005 Mustang GT and 2015 Mustange GT to the track to see what happens.”
Meh, the difference isn’t all that much.
The “Coyote” V-8 that gives the current Mustang GT its stones is basically the latest incarnation of the old Modular V-8 that harkens back to the 1991 Lincoln Town Car. It has different cylinder heads and many updates, but it’s still a Modular V-8.
Now, Ford did a great job on the motor, and it’s really got sock-it-to-em power. But it really isn’t something I’d cite to as a major development. And if I don’t want to drive around in a Mustang or an F-150, how can I enjoy it? It’s irrelevant beyond Mustang and truck buyers.
Look, I have no problem with your position that there shouldn’t be investment in that segment due to lack of consumer demand. That was my point — mediocre vehicles like the CRVEX, and their widespread acceptance, means there’s no incentive to invest in technology that makes vehicles more fun to drive. But don’t tell me there has been investment where there hasn’t!
I think those sportscars look less sporty because most cars have close to 200 hp base engine. So yes, performance cars have progressed a lot in that boring appliance cars almost belong to former sportscar category power-wise.
And sportscars with 300 hp… there are diminishing returns on upping that number. The average sportscar buyer doesn’t track daily.
“All with performance that would shame almost anything comparable from even just 10 years ago.”
This is unbelievable hyperbole.
Uhhh…CUVs and trucks are pretty high margin vehicles, I think, and help fuel the money for sports cars, which are pretty low volume vehicles. So if you don’t have CUVs and trucks, you wouldn’t have your beloved sports cars.
We test drove the 2015 CRV along with all of its competition. We ended up with a CX-5. The CRV is the best overall of the bunch though. Fundamentally, the passenger side legroom was horrible compared to the CX-5 and the driver side legroom was almost as bad. The CX-5 had a better driving position, too. Drive wise, the EX we test drove was competent and quiet. The car would move with the CVT whirling when one hits the gas. Overall, its a really nice vehicle. We just couldn’t get past the lack of passenger space in the front seats.
Sat in a CX-5 in the showroom yesterday. The seating position was much nicer than the Honda, which I didn’t feel comfortable in.
I can’t bring myself to own something that looks like that. Sorry.
The small wagon reigns supreme…
My sister-in-law and her husband own two of these. He hates the CVT in the newer one; I think the older one has actual gears.
Your point about the load floor is well-taken.
Last spring, while seriously considering a Sportage, I noticed that during egress you have to make a little horizontal hop in order to avoid brushing you leg on the rocker panel. Even at my height (6’6″), this isn’t easy. Such a ‘feature’ could be a pain in the winter with a messy car.
Accordingly, I’m hoping the Renegade is shaped better in this regard; it appears to be.
There is a place on the spectrum between the TMZ antics of Jalopnik and the appliance-think of Consumer Reports.
I love TTAC and consider it the messy democracy of auto blogs. Lots of excellent counterpoints, analysis and thoughtful reactions.
Jalopnik just did a story on the Internet comments about Elio. I have never seen a lazier piece of blogging in my life. They may as well have posted a screenshot of Elio’s facebook wall.
I’ve contacted Paul Elio to ask how many reservation cancellations there have been in the wake of their announcement that production will be delayed.
I am looking forward to any response, and appreciate with you do in the service of journalism.
You drove a CRV EX without a moon roof? All the EX models we get come standard with a moon roof. Is this a vehicle in Canada? Just curious. Over here we can’t keep enough of the CRV EX model in stock ever since Honda added the heated seats and power driver seat to the EX model with cloth seating. Our biggest competitors are Subaru Forester and the Ford Escape and we usually capture that customer.
Yep. This is an “SE” model, between an EX and an EX-L. SE trims are common in Canada.
I believe SE is new for 2015 and comes before EX and EX-L.
Here in Canada we have a model called the SE. It’s new for 2015. It’s the first one that gives you alloy rims. You know the same alloy rims you can get on a $22,000 Civic EX. It lists for $29, 890 plus destination on the Honda Canada website. The next model up is the EX,which is 431,890 plus destination which is where the first sunroof appears. You know the same sunroof you can get on a $22,000 Civic EX.
The main differences in the SE and the EX are foglights, sunroof, dual zone climate control, seatback pockets, illuminated vanity mirrors, the lane watch system, a cargo cover, and 10 way vs 6 way power adjustable drivers seat. Now, all those items may be worth the extra $2000 over the SE, but the fact that some of them are not included on the $30,000 SE is ridiculas! You drop $30,000 plus tax, plus destination, plus other fees and you don’t get fog lights, illuminated vanity mirrors or seatback pockets? Come on!
Also, if you want to move up to leather seats and steering wheel and the upgraded stereo, you have to go up to the EX-L for $33, 890. Like I said, when you go to buy a vehicle in Canada, bend over and don’t expect vaseline.
Seats on the wrong side of firm? Wow, that’s a revelation! Wifey’s 2002 CR-V’s seats might as well be park benches, but have softened over the years just a bit.
I’m starting the process of researching my next vehicle to replace my current 2010 Mazda 3 hatchback. It’s not an easy decision, as I live in the real world and not a fantasy land where driving a fast exciting car everyday is realistic. I need a vehicle that will provide me with a number of features. I want something that has a reputation for reliability and good resale value. Why would I want to spend my own money on a new vehicle that did not provide these two features? There are a couple of companies out there that seem to be able to provide both these features. One is Honda.
I would be willing to look at another hatch back, because another feature that is important to me is practicality. With the seats folded down in a hatchback, you can really fit and transport so many more large or clumsey items as opposed to a sedan with a trunk. I’m still considering an Accord, but I’m afraid I will really miss the versatility of a hatchback. So, just get another hatchback right? They sure are less expensive than the current crop of SUVs, which seem overpriced. But what hatch? Another Mazda 3? No thanks. The 2.0 is slow, the 2.5 is way too expensive, the new generation is actually less practical than the old one. Then there is the kicker. Made in Mexico. Might work out but if I have trouble with the car, who am I going to have to blame? Myself. Why take a chance. I like the looks of the Volkswagen Golf, but poor reliability stories are just too rampant to ignore. And, made in Mexico. Plus the local dealer ticked me off, so that’s out. Ford Focus. Can’t see it or the Korean makers. That’s it. Back to the Japanese makers, such as Toyota, Honda or Subaru. Only Subaru has a hatch, the Impreza or Crosstrek. Where I live, the East Coast of Canada, the AWD would really come in handy, but the weak sub 150 horsepower engine, and higher than anyone else’s interst rates are turning me off.
So now what? Looks like an SUV. I’m not thrilled with this, but I can get AWD, extra ride height and in most cases a load of room for clumsey items, camping trips etc. To me, the CRV seems like the best choice. Yeah, it doesn’t look great, but most of them don’t. The Subaru Forester looks horrible in anything but the top trim, which here in Canada starts at $34,000 and doesn’t get good fuel economy. The Toyota RAV4 looks no better than the CRV IMO and has a more dated powertrain. The Honda 2.4 Earth Dreams engine looks to be one of the best 4 cylinders on the market in terms of power and efficiency.
One line I noticed in this article, talking about features on the CRV SE version stats “example lacked a sunroof, leather interior or some of the other touches that are found on competitors”. I’m not sure what this means as these items are available on other trims of the CRV, just for more money, just like the other manufacturers. In my research, one thing stood out. All these SUVs pretty much cost the same as each other, with very similar features. They also make sedans look like a great bargain. The SUVs really make you pay big dollars to get basic features found in much cheaper sedans. We bend over and take it without vaseline here in Canada when we buy any vehicle, but SUVs are the worst offenders. Want dual zone climate control? Better have at least $32,000 in your pocket. Want alloy rims that are available on a $22,000 Civic EX? Better have $30,000 plus in your pocket. Want a cargo cover for the rear. Pretty standard on the cheapest hatchback. Better have $32,000 in your pocket if you want it on the CRV. Leather wrapped steering wheel? Oh man, break out your cheque book. On and on it goes.
Bottom line, if I want AWD, lots of room for storage, and a decently responsive engine, where do I go? Sounds like Honda CRV. These SUVs all cost roughly $30,000 to get in the game with AWD.It’s not like Hyundai or Kia are cheaper. I see late model Ford Escapes in every used car lot in town. Can’t be good for resale. Mazda CX5? A viable contender, but it doesn’t look as roomy or practical and it’s pretty pricey too. The CRV looks like the best choice if you have to get an SUV.
Check out the Ford Escapes, 2.0 Ecoboost on 2013 or newer, V6 on 2012 or older. You might be surprised. Pretty good 4WD vehicles for not a lot of money. I’m on my 2nd and am quite happy with the value
What about reliability? What about fuel economy? I have heard the 2.0 EB isn’t great for mileage, but then again, that 240 horsepower would make up for the extra expense vs the weak 4 cylinder offerings in most SUVs. Also, does the Escape have decent storage space? It doesn’t look like it would be as roomy as some of the other offerings.
I have to say though, the choices of engines and options is much better with the domestics. I can get a front wheel drive Escape with the 2.0 EB in a decent trim level. No one else offers that. With the Japanese makers, front wheel drive means cheapy stamped steel wheels and a base model.
The Escape has deent storage space. It’s not as good as the CR-V. The rear seat room isn’t the best, but if adults aren’t sitting back there for hours, it should be a non issue.
As for mileage, I was getting in the mid 20s the last time I drove an Escaoe 2.0T AWD. It was about the same as the MKV GTI I had.
As far as reliability goes, I wouldn’t worry so much about it. The 6F35 is a decent transmission and the 2.0T is used in a bunch of Ford products. I’ve owned three cars on that platform and the only issues I had were early MFT (love it now) and the Focus transmission.
Does the Escape 2.0 EB take premium or regular fuel?
It will take regular. HP will drop from 240 to 231 on regular fuel. Torque will remain the same.
Get one that has had all the recalls completed on it. IIRC, the seats were recalled for FMVSS and there is a fuel line recall that are major.
The 2.0L in New England gets about 18 mpg combined.
Want to know what I love about bball40 & Tres?
Their honesty.
Both are automotive insiders and I’ve yet to NOT read anything they’ve written, even if it concerns a product that they have a personal interest/agenda to promote or at least treat with “kids gloves,” because of said personal interest, where they weren’t what I believe to be 100% honest.
I strive to be honest even in my fits of hyperbole and cantankerousness at times, but I’m also not an automotive insider like those two are
DW, you know a thing or two about cars (more of course to be honest). I read your stuff with great interest, though you do have your peeves and won’t let go! Agreed on bball and tresmonos, plus mikey too and some others, genuine bona fide insiders because they say things that even I, on the very periphery of any auto industry insider cred, have heard over and over.
Thank you Marcelo. With the possible exception of a few, I read all the comments here. Some folks do know what their talking about. Some folks don’t, Some are quite entertaining, and make me laugh out loud.
That’s why I said the 2.0 EB It’s just the best engine for the Escape. The thrill though is in the drive. We talk a lot about how dull CUVs are to drive, but the Escape is fun
If I had to get an Escape, a 12 model with the 3.0 would be my choice.
CRV has FWD available in all trim levels.
Not for model year 2015, at least not in Canada. FWD is only available on the base model, which has those terrible stamped steel rims.
that probably is related to past take rates and demand. Like manuals and V6 disappeared because fewer people bought them.
Second that, I have over 110,000 trouble free miles on my 2010 Mariner. The escape and mariner do tend to keep up their value. Sometimes you can be with in $50 of a new model with the 0% rates.
I really do not see the need for AWD in the CDN climate as you need to run winters anyway. A decent set of winter tyres plus the ride height of an SUV means you’re good to go.
I don’t get the love for AWD, I just don’t.
Most people outside of Quebec still run all seasons. The average suburban commuter gets by fine with FWD and all seasons in most areas. AWD doesn’t really give great value in most instances where people don’t drive off paved and plowed roads considering the fuel consumption penalty is always there.
FWIW my old CR-V has a 1-2 mpg penalty for AWD over the FWD version from the same year. Quick and dirty math says that amounts to a ~$1K penalty over 282,000 miles and 16 years. That doesn’t bother me very much.
For that matter a person could choose a manual transmission over an automatic and see that much difference.
Checked over the weekend. There is a 1 mpg penalty for FWD vs AWD in the new CR-V. I think there was a 1 mpg penalty in the old (Gen 1) version too.
If you have no exposure to 4×4 AWD then you probably wouldn’t really get it, but once you spend some time off-road or multiple snowy situations and see what a difference AWD can make, then you’ll get it
We have the CR-V-under-the-skin RDX, and it’s currently on all-seasons, and I have my TSX on Firestone Winterforce snow tires; I’ll take the TSX every time in the snow. I keep threatening my wife I’m going to order a $1200 winter wheel/tire package from tirerack for her RDX, but honestly, Chicagoland has been so mild this winter so I haven’t bothered. The second it kicks up though….
My C-Max is garbage in the snow without the winter tires. I also have the Firestone Winterforces on it. I still might take my wife’s MkT AWD with all seasons on it over the winter tire clad C-Max. We dropped some coin for 17s and Blizzaks. That thing is a snow beast now. We drive up to northern Michigan often in the winter so it’s worth it.
Yay winter tire talk!
Thats all…
“Chicagoland has been so mild this winter so I haven’t bothered. The second it kicks up though….”
Well, today is the day because we’ve had a foot of snow and it’s still coming down
Winter ride is an AWD 2011 Forester, manual trans, studded ice radials. Trolling “Bro-Dozers” never gets old.
No matter how often or emphatically we enlightened preach the gospel of SNOW tires, some people, whether on rwd, fwd, awd or even (conditions bad enough) 4wd, will never, ever, ever “get it.”
Dedicated snow tires are up their with stability control & the seat belt in terms of safety equipment that works fantastically well at preventing accidents and/or injuries.
I’m sitting here in my home office, on yet another snowy messy day in Maine, and not 30 minutes ago a zipper head in a CUV lost it, spun, and went backwards into the snowbank across the street from where I am sitting. AWD + all season tires for the win, yet again! I gave him a 8.5 with extra style points for that graceful pirouette, plus he managed to miss my mailbox by about 3′. It was amusing watching it randomly spin the rear wheels as he tried to get the thing unstuck. Useless, and just gives a feeling of overconfidence since you can go, but you can’t stop or steer.
I went out to lunch a couple hours ago in my snow-tire shod Rover and it might as well have been dry pavement for all the sliding around I did.
So, Rover 4X4 with snow tires trumps a AWD CUV with all-seasons…
You don’t say
If he had the proper tires on the thing, he would not have had to dig it out of a snowbank. And get the big dent in the rear quarter fixed – I bet his deductible is about what a set of snow tires cost.
Until the snow gets deeper than it has ground clearance, my RWD BMW with snows is the better car on a greasy road than the Rover is by far. It may not accelerate quite as fast, but it sure does stop and turn better, being 1500lbs or so lighter, and 15 years more advanced in its stability and traction control systems. I have zero concern about getting stuck, we have these neat things called snow plows around here.
The main reason I drive the Rover when it is slippery, is because if someone slides into it, I will call it “character” and cash their check. Or if bad enough, buy another one that looks just like it, and have a parts truck. If someone slides into my BMW, you will hear my wails of anguish from outer space, as it is nearly irreplaceable. My Jeep got run into twice in storms while I had it, once when parked. People are stupid.
Alfisti, I wished I could teleport you to help me push my 2WD winter tire-shod car out of my parking stall. I would have needed you at least 14 times since November. Alas, I had to settle for steel traction aids for help.
“I don’t get the love for AWD, I just don’t.”
I imagine you also don’t understand how a sporty RWD car could be more fun to drive in the summer than a FWD snoozemobile. That’s not unusual. Most of the population doesn’t see driving as a source of entertainment.
frozenman sounds like he knows how to have fun on winter roads.
Boxofrain-
What’s your price range? If you are looking to drop $30K, I’d tell you to wait for the 2015 Edge.
You pretty much have to show up with $30,000 in Canada just to get in the game for a AWD SUV. Brutal. $30,000 in the US is getting into some good trim levels. A $30,000 CRV SE in Canada is only a mid level trim.
You can get a Forester XT for that price.
@Boxofrain – Good post, I’m in exactly the same position, looking to move on from my 2012 Mazda2. I need AWD as I’m moving to the boonies to a house up a steep gravel track. The only difference is that I’m leaning towards the RAV4 rather than the CR-V – firstly because it looks like you can get a better deal than for a CR-V, but also *because* of its slightly outdated technology. That CVT in the Honda is pretty new, whereas the 6-speed auto in the RAV4 is (I believe) the same one tried and tested by millions of Americans in the Camry.
I do like the Impreza hatch in higher trims, but the RAV4 or CR-V are not much more than a decently-specced Impreza, and they offer better resale value, more space, and probably better overall reliability. The XV Crosstrek seems a good idea at first but the cost is too close to the RAV4/CR-V for what is a lesser vehicle, and (on a more superficial level) the colour choices are appalling!
I’ve looked at Subaru. Only 148 horsepower in Impreza or Crosstrek seems a little low, and all the Subaru finance rates are double most everyone else. I will be looking at the RAV4 also. Why not? I’m looking at SUVs, so what does it matter Toyota vs Honda. I’d take an Accord over a Camry however.
It seems slightly bizarre to call out the 2.0L Mazda3 as slow and then consider a CRV/RAV4 which is slightly slower.
Why the slam of Mexico made vehicles? I have a bought new 2005 PT Cruiser that has given very good service for ten years now. Made in Saltillo, Mexico. A lot of cars are made in Mexico and give good service. A partial list of auto manufacturers in Mexico includes BMW, Chrysler, Fiat, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes, Nissan, and Toyota. For heavy duty vehicles there are Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Freightliner, MAN, Scania, and Volvo. I would think that there were not many people ignorant enough to think that made in Mexico would have any effect on reliability. The most important effect on reliability is design and materials specified. Those things do not change no matter where a vehicle is built.
@ charliej….I’ve tried to make that point here for years.
I’ve often wondered this myself, however tresmonos’ “postcards from the Mexican boarder” certainly haven’t helped, but sure are fun to read
Traded a 2012 CR-V for a 2014 Forrester. Everything the CR-V does well the Subie does better. Everything the CR-V does poorly, yeah the Subie does just as bad. (I’m looking at you Bluetooth system!)
Aside from the superior AWD system, what does the Forester offer that’s better than the CRV? It has to be the worst looking SUV available, it’s drivetrain looks to be inferior to the CRV and the interior looks dated. Also Subaru’s finance rates are higher than most.
Spend a few bucks more a month and get an Outback limited with the 2.5. Done.
The Outback with the 2.5 and CVT is horribly slow and terrible to drive. Awful power-train, but at least it is fuel efficient now.
That’s what I’ve heard. Seems like a large vehicle with only 175 horsepower. I like the looks of it, but the CRV seems like it’s more compact for city parking.
My 2013 2.5/CVT is just fine on my daily slog, venturing from stop and go to 80 mph on the freeway. The ’13-’14 had huge adjustments to the engine/trans mapping; a friend with an ’11 really thought mine was the H6. I’ve never driven the 3.6, but I assume it’s a screamer compared to my 2.5.
The new ’15 2.5s are supposed to be better yet.
Subaru does not need the sub prime and 0% to sell their vehicles. Honda, toyota, on the other hand live with those 0% rates to keep up sales.
“0% Financing on all new 2014 Outback Models
Now through February 2, 2015 get 0% Financing on all new 2014 Outback Models”
http://www.subaru.com/special-offers/index.html
You were saying?
2014 models. Smart arse. Subaru does not need to do that with 2015 as does honda, nissan, Toyota.
1.49% Financing on all new 2015 Outback Models
Now through February 2, 2015 get 1.49% Financing on all new 2015 Outback Models
1.49% Financing on all new 2015 Forester Models
Now through February 2, 2015 get 1.49% Financing on all new 2015 Forester Models
1.49% Financing on all new 2015 Impreza Models
Now through February 2, 2015 get 1.49% Financing on all new 2015 Impreza Models
1.49% Financing on all new 2015 Legacy Models
Now through February 2, 2015 get 1.49% Financing on all new 2015 Legacy Models
Big difference, my bad
This 1.49% financing on all new 2015 Outback, is that nationwide, or regional?
We haven’t heard of it in my area with dealerships in Ruidoso, NM and El Paso, TX. Don’t know about Albuquerque or Santa Fe, Lubbock, Amarillo, or Colo Sprgs.
Not sure, since you have to put your zip code in to get the deals
I agree…
I test drove all of these for a LONG time before deciding on the 2.0 Escape.
And I think the ONLY other CUV I would have purchased is the Forester.
Pretty close between it and the Mazda.
But the Honda???
PLEASE.
This story is bunk.
“On the other hand, the CR-Vs rap for being a boring drive is unfounded”
Unfounded my butt!
And reading remarks about the Escape 2.0 MPG above is ridiculous. Mine is averaging a over 25…and that is with my wife’s unbelievable desire to stomp on the gas and slam on brakes.
I did enjoy the turbo Forester but for the trans and it seems I left a mark on the door every time I got in.
But the design and views is fabulous. Really my fav design.
Very nice review. The only thing missing for me was info on visibility. I’ve never been in one, but it looks like the visibility might not be great, especially with the fat D pillars. My cousin recently bought a forester, and one of the selling points was the visibility was quite good.
It’s not good. I imagine that one adapts to it, but the poor visibility is what steered some friends of mine towards a Forester as well.
so piss poor power, bland and cheap interior, no fun and poor visibility.
So much for the Perfect CUV, huh?
It sucks.
Did a crv come to your house and kick your dog and spill salsa on the rug or something? Jeez. I’ve never heard such vitrol directed at a crossover before!
1. Adequate power for its intended use.
2. Subjective. You see “bland and cheap,” the target audience sees “subdued and thrifty.”
3. Subjective. This may come as a shock, but the vast majority of non-car people don’t want or need a “fun” vehicle. They want a practical one. That’s fun to them.
4. No modern vehicle has great visibility, but most are manageable. The CR-V still has better rear visibility than the Escape with its dinky little C-windows, or the Sportage, which has no C-windows at all.
You are entitled to your opinion, but as gtemnykh said, the vitriol is unnecessary and only serves to make you look like a troll. And you aren’t one of those, right?
if I am allowed my opinion, then why are a few of you so undone by my giving it?
Seems rather ridiculous to say I can give it then hit at me for doin so.
Kind of a weird anti logic…or bait n switch.
If the author feels he can put forth his opinion and get paid for it…we support his income by venting our thought…
And you remark is stupid.
The visibility is better than you might think out the back, particularly with the LaneWatch camera backing you up in the higher trims.
Lots of old people choose the Forester because of ease getting in and out of them. Second best-loved by oldsters is the Outback.
This doesn’t mean it is their only vehicle. But in my area a Subie is often one of their vehicles, especially if they live in the four-season mountain areas or ski-country.
+1
The average new car today has about as much as horsepower as a Ferrari 308.
Put that Ferrari in a stoplight race against a V6 Camry or Accord, and the Ferrari is going to lose. (That Scion FR-S that all of you like to complain about for being too slow will also beat the Ferrari.)
Sports cars are on the wane because there isn’t much that they can do that can’t be done by something else that is more practical.
^^^ +1
Cars like the CRX that enthusiast drool over would be embarrassed by many cars on the road today. Also, don’t get in even a minor wreck in one if you want don’t want to be hosed out of it.
RAV4? ‘Nox/Terrain. Outsold by the CRV but often cheaper, just as functional, and about as much fun to drive.
My question is, why do so many onboard electronics/nav systems suck so absolutely abysmally?
My parents’ Camry (last year’s hybrid) has an atrociously half-assed software system, with terrible UI, that makes it clear nobody with any power over the process *had any idea what the very term ‘UX’ means*.
(It means “User Experience”, by the way.)
The Crosstour I test drove, while otherwise very nice, had an even worse electronics/nav stack UX, to the point where *that’s what took it out of consideration*.
(Over in luxo-land, of the ones I tried, MB and BMW were tolerable, and Audi and Volvo both seemed to be actually *nice*.
But there’s no reason that this should be a luxury feature! It barely costs any more to do it right, if any thing, and it makes your customers do something other than *hate the process of interacting with the car*.
You’d think carmakers would care…)
I have the same complaint about the CRV that I have about the RAV-4. The previous generation was better. Nicer to drive, felt better built, not as bloated. Perfectly adequate transportation modules, but nothing else. Which if you don’t care, have at them. At least they have a fifth door, thus are very useful, though I much prefer my wagons without the stilts. I’d take either one over the equivalent sedan in their respective makers lineup any day.
Especially the previous gen Rav-4 was always a super pleasant surprise to me that somehow Toyota actually managed to make the thing fun, even with the 4. And of course the V6 is just silly fun. Toyota! Talked my roommate into buying one, he loves it. The new one is just an awful, vague handling bloated blob of a thing.
The Honda is a nice …product, well suited to carrying all your other products within. I’ve always said that if REI sold cars, the’d have a Forester in the store. For this Honda, you’d shop The Container Store.
I got to drive a last-gen CR-V in the busy traffic of Washington DC last year. It felt at home there. But I couldn’t get over the creaking sound I heard every time I accelerated… as of the whole unibody was stretching at the front door. That couldn’t be true, could it?
I don’t get the Forester at all. In the mid level trims it looks terrible. The XT looks better but starts at $34,000. The interior looks dated. The drive train leaves a little to be desired and is not as good as what’s in the CRV.
Subarus have never been pretty, with a short trim they’re downright ugly.
Their interiors haven’t had many men inside.
But they’re certainly at home in the bush!
Considerable resemblance to the fur traders who drive them.
Really? Did 7th grade have any math homework?
Huh. I read all the comments about the relative merits of the CRX, snow tires vs. all-season, AWD and so on. Nothing about the basic thrust of Derek’s argument: that TTAC isn’t going to limit its reviews, etc. to halo cars, dream cars, etc.
I admit that I’ve never actually subscribed to any of the car mags in my 45-years or so of adult life, but I surely snitched a read or two of them on the newstands when I could get away with it and now read whatever stuff they put on their web sites.
My unscientific sense is that, over the years, those mags have increasingly focused their reviews on the halo cars, at the expense of the grocery-getters. I dunno, maybe its that there are a lot more of them out there, as manufacturers follow the money to the 0.5% who have made out like bandits in the last 6 years.
Derek, you nailed it. The CR-V does get a bad rap for being boring because I don’t think that’s the case at all.
I bought a 2011 CRV EX last year, and when I took my first turn out of the dealership lot, the first thing I noticed was how crisp the steering is. It’s fairly agile and very easy to maneuver, yet it soaks up the bumps well. The four cylinder/5 speed automatic may be ancient, but they’re smooth and work well. The interior is very nice, too. Lots of hard plastic, but it looks a lot more expensive than it is, and the cloth seats, door armrests, and major touch points are all high quality.
Much as I love my 2011, I would not buy the 2015s. Compared to the 2007-2011 models, they cheapened the interior look, and I don’t like how they reduced the size of the rear window. Also, I’m not sure how well Honda’s CVT will hold up. I would need a few more years of data on their reliability.
Overall, though, it’s hard to go wrong with the CR-V. I get why it sells so well each year.
Have you EVER know Hondas to have transmission problems? :0
I’ve knowns multiple people that had transmission issues with their Honda’s. $3000 to $7000 issues. Mainly Odyssey and pilot issues.
Perfect reason to want a manual transmission option but alas living in the USA I don’t get that option.
I can’t imagine a CVT would be very happy towing and this is a must.
I have towed with mine ALOT. Generally 1000-1500 lbs with a few occasions where I towed 3500-4000 lbs. Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch – you can tow anything assuming you can stop it safely. I’ve towed a car and carried five people inside my CR-V including myself. That was a 50-55 mph run but I quickly settled on 45-50 as a happy pace on empty country highways with plenty of visibility and thus time to stop. Another “resue” with the towdolly was dragging a friend’s Accord across town after it popped one of it’s cam plus out (major oil leak). Couldn’t get the plugs on short notice so we got the car to my house until he could get the plugs. ~35-40 mph.
1st. I like that TTAC keeps updating us on the ‘boring’ cars. No one else gives these cars enough time because they think people don’t care, but they seem to generate a lot of comments here still. Enthusiast cars are aso much easier to review, because you mainly have to check the numbers and test the handling. With cars like these there are numerous subtle differences that can be a dealbreaker to some of us. And despite most of it’s buyers not being ‘internet-warriors’ that rave on and off about it’s strenghts and weaknesses like they would a C7 or M3, there are still a lot more buyers to choose from.
2nd. I really don’t get the hate against CUV’s. OK, some of it is ‘hipsterism’ , I also love to hate on mainstream stuff, so I’ve never owned a Toyota or VW, but this type of cars aren’t just popular because they are a fashion accessory. Some people like to mention that their useless sedans (Taxis and Police cruisers to me) are a bargain with the same features, but guess what, there are other features than gadgets out there. Size and interior space is a feature to some of us, and that is one feature that is not cheap to add in a sedan. Not to mention, there aren’t many large wagons out here anymore.
I’m on my 2nd CR-V (an early 07, after our late ’02 was totalled)
and they are brilliant in what they are. Compact cars with massive passenger space.
They also drive as well as (or better than) most minivans, while being about as large or bigger (minus the two extra seats that I never need)on the inside. nd still they have a pretty compact footprint, making them easy to maneuver almost anywhere.
And all the 5 seats are accessible through normal doors, unlike many minvans that are practically 2+2+2 seaters.
Gas mileage is horrible compared to a modern sedan, but still better than a sedan or wagon with similar rear lefroom/hiproom (since those were all made before catalytic converters etc.)
It is not an ‘interesting’ or ‘fun’ car in any ways (the first 2 generations had potential) and it feels like it’s made for people with shorter legs than mine, but it does everything I need it to do really well, and apart from the AC-compressor, it will statistically keep doing it for many years to come.
It is still definitely an appliance, but it’s probably a jack of more trades than most other jacks.
I still want to sell mine and buy a nice 1st gen…
Aren’t CR-Vs kind of rare where you are, or have I misunderstood prior information?
No, CR-V’s aren’t exactly rare, but they are offcourse outnumbered by European station wagons. Alongside the RAV4 they used to be a bestseller in its class until the competition started building 7 seater versions, and Honda stubbornly refuses to put useless seats in the trunk unlike the others. It guess it’s also the most popular Honda model over here.
I think of our CR-V as lots of fun. We’ve wandered through mtns roads on camping trips, drove across the state to adopt our family dog, have hauled dogs in the “wayback” (cargo area) from shelters to families that adopted them. We’ve towed our Brenderup 1205S all over the place on “adventures” bringing home antique car parts, antique furniture, hauled the whole Boy Scout troop’s gear on multiple trips. We brought home a stove in the back of the ‘V – laying on it’s side, tailgate and glass closed. Have forded some creeks, crept down trails, slithered through the mud and snow, and pulled friends out of trouble.
So no, I have not drifted around a track (have drifted it in the snow) nor did I show a Porsche who was boss on a twisty mtn road – – – we have had alot of fund with this family hauler. ;)
It has more than earned it’s beans and parking spot in the driveway. Tonight after Daddy Taxi duty, it’ll haul myself, my wife and her best friend (after me) to the pub for some grub and beers – and won’t complain one bit. ;)
I believe the cute ute to watch is the Jeep Cherokee V6. A Honda dealer in my region sells both brands, s!de by s!de, and he has noticed a number of 3-5 year old CR-Vs being traded for a new Cherokee.
OTOH, the Subaru Outback 3.5 is sold before it even arrives at the dealership. If the dealers were able to get more, they would be able to sell more.
This doesn’t take anything away from the CR-V or RAV4. They each have their fans.
I believe that the new renegade will outsell the Cherokee once it gets up to full speed at dealerships.
I don’t doubt that but they do operate and compete in an automotive universe each their own. The Cherokee and Renegade do not compete against each other. They are in separate classes, segments, sizes and, some would say, demographic appeal.
For me, the more the merrier. The more choices we have, the more we can tailor our needs to our wants.
In any case, the 2012 Fiatsler Jeep Grand Cherokee I bought for my wife has given us excellent service. I would recommend the Jeep brand ever since Sergio took charge of the helm.
By extension, I would be willing to give a Fiatsler product cons!deration were I in the market for a size, class or segment vehicle where they compete.
I think Jeep has effectively shed its ill repute since Sergio assumed control.
Hello highdesertcat! Long time, no talk!
That’s a change from you is it not? Seems to me last time we talked, you were happy with your Jeep, but were worried long-term. The very last time we talked you were doubly worried as some recall or other had been issued.
So, recommend now? Remember Marchionne et all ar tutti buona genti!
If you are on the boat now, FCA is looking at some good years ahead. They (Fiat) know a thing or two about cars and how to make them it would seem. And all the backstage work I talk about so often here on TTAC has just gotten a thumbs up.
Hi Marcelo! Yes, long time, no talk. And yes, at this point I recommend the Jeep products, especially the Grand Cherokee.
I am venturing out on a limb by assuming that the quality improvements I found in our 2012 Grand Cherokee have, by now, filtered down to the Cherokee and future Renegade.
No problems with our JGC in >3 yrs and >60K miles. Just tires, EHPS fluid, a voluntary firmware-flash upgrade, K&N air filter and new wipers all around. Did everything myself at the Auto Hobby Shop on the airbase, except the voluntary firmware-flash which was done at the dealership owned by my poker-playing partner and friend.
But there have been many many many changes in my life since we last communicated. All of them good changes. I am very positive about 2015 being an excellent year for me and mine.
The Grand Cherokee, however, is no longer our prime vehicle, and no longer in our possession. My wife and I are down to my 2011 Tundra, and the family business bought her a 2015 Sequoia Platinum 4×4.
The Grand Cherokee is being used by my 23-yo grand daughter in Cloudcroft, NM. Since her dad, my oldest son, has an all-black 2012 Grand Cherokee SRT8, it seemed the natural thing to do to have her drive our 2012 Grand Cherokee and have him maintain it.
My grand daughter sold her 2011 Elantra to a friend from college. It still runs great, long after the factory warranty has expired.
We still have the 2008 Highlander but it is now the daily driver for my 17-yo grand daughter in El Paso, TX.
Frankly, I doubt seriously that I’ll be buying another vehicle after I trade my 2011 Tundra for a 2016 Tundra 4dr 4×4.
The Sequoia and my new 2016 Tundra will most likely be the last vehicles of my driving life. I’m pushing 70 years of age and don’t wear out vehicles like I used to do.
Since my wife started working from home, we have put less than 3000 miles on the Sequoia since it was bought in September 2014. Low gas prices have been lost on us since we don’t rack up the miles any more.
Lotsa changes. All of them good ones.
So very happy to hear! To use a beat phrase, may you live long and prosper!
Thank you, Marcelo.
Marcelo & HDC….Me too..Lotsa changes. I just hope I can keep the rustys from attacking and killing my 14 Impala.
Like the CRV, you could hardly call a 4 cyl Impala a “car guys” car. For me, where I am right now, its a perfect car.
I have driven my daughters, much abused CRV. I can see why the sales numbers are so high.
mikey, this seems to be the year for lotsa great changes for many of us.
You’ll do alright as long as you keep your eyes on the donut, not the hole.
But for those in the market, I would urge them to buy at this time before the 2016 rules, mandates and requirements kick in.
While it is true that oil won’t remain cheap for long, government intervention and mandates will only result in emasculated, downsized, lighter cars and trucks.
No doubt, for trucks the future holds aluminum bodies with bi-turbo four- banger engines and for sedans the supercharged 2CV engine will be the norm. All in the interest of CAFE.
No thanks! I’ll buy mine this year. And I’ll buy something with gusto.
@HDC…”Keep your eye on the donut, not the hole”…Sage advice, my friend, sage advice…
I’m told the new 2.5 Impalas are going to be programed to shut down, when you stop at a light.??
Too high tech, for this old guy. Good luck with your new Tundra..Eh..
mikey, I think there will be all sorts of new gimmicks that will be tried on the trusting and unsuspecting public, all supposedly in the interest of fuel economy and lowering of carbon emissions.
This auto start/stop at stop signs and traffic lights sure will increase the wear and tear on the starter motor and ring gear. Seems to me it has been tried before with different vehicles but never caught on.
In the interest of beating these government fuel economy mandates, my best friend bought a 2015 Avalon to replace his 1989 Camry V6. They were having a sale on Avalon.
The Toyota dealership was going to crush that 1989 Camry until I stepped in and offered to buy it from my friend for $1.00. Done deal!
I just got back from the airbase and drove that old Camry. Runs great. Hauls @ss! Paint job’s still good. No rust.
So now we’re back up to three cars, my wife and I, with the addition of this 1989 Camry. But I don’t intend to register that Camry although he did sign over the Title to me with the date left blank.
I’ll just use the Camry when I need it in an emergency, or maybe once a week to keep it operational and the seals moist. In the mean time, if some illegal alien with a brand- new New Mexico drivers license offers to buy it from me, I’ll let go of it (for more than $1.00).
I thought the start and stop feature relied on a different kind of starter – either something integrated into the flywheel or alternator (which temporarily has the alternator functioning as a motor). Can’t imagine any car maker would rely on a starter/ring gear for a idle-stop mechanism.
I’m a big fan of the grand cherokee, however, none of the other jeep models currently do it for me. I agree, they are very much improved over the previous outgoing models!
I just had a look at the RAV4 online, specifically the XLE model. Here in Canada it sells for a tad over $30,000, which is roughly the same as the Honda CRV SE, which is a few hundred dollars less. However, the RAV4 XLE includes many features lacking in the Honda CRV SE, including dual zone climate control, a sunroof, foglights, SiriusXM Satellite, cargo cover for the rear,and all season floor mats. That’s a lot of extra features for the same price. Many of these feature’s I was surprised didn’t come with the $30,000 Honda and I actually wanted. I can live without a sunroof, but it’s nice they include it for the same price. I would love dual zone climate control and I feel a cargo cover is essential. That’s almost $300 extra at Honda.
You drop $30,000 on the Honda and you still have to look at those ugly plastic block out plates where fog lamps should be, not that I find fog lamps anything special, but the plastic block out plates look like crap. I’ll live with it at $20,000, but at $30,000 I find it pretty cheap on Honda’s part. No cargo cover? That’s standard on the cheapest hatchback. SiriusXM Satellite. Why not? At least it gives me the option. You can’t get that with the CRV till you spend at least $34,000.
Looks like I’ll have to drop into the local Toyota dealer and have a look. I know everyone is groaning here at the mention of Toyota, but we’re talking about SUVs, so does it matter?
@Boxofrain – Toyota is certainly offering better deals than Honda at the moment, and it’s a good car (although a bit cheap in places). It’s a strong contender on my list.
Don’t ignore the 2015 Mazda CX-5 GS with the 2.5 either – the list price is $2K more than the RAV4, but with a loyalty bonus for repeat Mazda customers, zero-percent financing available and a 2016 model in the wings, the end price is much closer than you’d think. The CX-5 is supposed to be (I haven’t yet driven t so I can’t confirm) a much better drive than the RAV4. The CX-5 is the one that wins all the comparison tests at least.
I sat in a CX-5 in the showroom yesterday. Much nicer seating position than the CRV. I’ll wait for the 2016 which is suppose to have some improvements and consider that too.
I actually recently bought a vehicle in this segment (for my wife). I pretty much agree with the assessment here. I skeptically drove the CR-V, expecting a barrel of bore, but it really, honestly, wasn’t that bad. The CVT was well-behaved (better than any of the Nissan/Toyota models I’ve driven previously), the interior was more up to snuff than it had been in previous years, and they just got a lot of the interior features/ergo right in that vehicle.
That said, we didn’t end up with a CR-V. Despite the fact that I’m the car guy in our relationship, turns out my wife didn’t like giving up the excellent steering, chassis, overall competent handling from her 1st gen Mazda3. We ended up with a CX-5, in large part due to two factors: 1) It was significantly less money for a comparably equipped CR-V and 2) It’s probably the best-driving SUV in the segment (ignoring some overpriced German metal).
Am I correct in saying a Ford Escape with the 2.0 Ecoboost and FWD is the SUV version of the Focus ST?
Yes
Yes, especially since if you tell Ford you want a Focus wagon in the US, they direct you to a C-Max or Escape. Global C platform and all that.
“Unlike most enthusiasts, I don’t reflexively hate the CUV”
It’s because you are not a childish brat like most of them.
“After all, 300,000 people can’t be wrong”
Most people are stupid left-wing-parasite monkey-children thanks to public school and television…soo, yes they can.
“Most people are stupid left-wing-parasite monkey-children thanks to public school and television…soo, yes they can.”
TTAC Trollmeter score 8/10
Not bad
Derek thank you for this article about the CRV, it is spot on. My wife got a new loaded CRV in 2013 and it meets all of out needs. Easy to drive, comfortable, easy to get in and out of, easy access to the cargo area, fuel economy is decent, and very reliable. My wife and I are at the age we do not need to impress anyone nor do we need a high performance vehicle with rock climbing capacities. The AWD does what it should in the snow and inclement weather conditions. If this is boring then count me in with the 300k sales of CRV and a resale value higher than most other CUVs. Worth the 31k price especially since we will be driving our CRV for the next 10 to 15 years.
Why would you recommend a CR-V to someone looking so spend $30,000 or less for an AWD CUV when the AWD system doesn’t actually work?
http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/looks-like-the-2015-honda-cr-vs-awd-system-doesnt-work-1649969431
Honda is quite brilliant about this, actually. They know they are selling to people who don’t really need AWD, and have built a system perfectly suited to their needs. It adds minimal drag or affect on handling, minimal affect on fuel economy so it is perfect for their users in its normal use.
Of course it also isn’t strong enough to withstand any case where they would send real torque to the rear wheels, so they ensure that never happens. That works out well since the owners don’t really need AWD anyway.
That test reminds me of a similar one where BMW rigged-up a test to show that their AWD system works better than the Torsen center diff on an Audi. It also involved using rollers so that a specific combination of wheels was without traction.
It’s like having someone “prove” that coffee mugs don’t work because you can’t hold them upside-down. Therefore we should use sippy cups.
The CR-V’s AWD, like the coffee mug, works better in real life than in theory. Fact is, 2wd works better on all but a couple days a year, and you only really need a small push from the other axle on those couple days (one of those was earlier this week, coincidentally).
Obviously, the rules are different if you are a rock crawler. But that’s like comparing a competitive weight lifter with a regular guy who occasionally needs to move something heavy.
Well Honda never ever gave us what the theoretical capacity of their AWD was, so we can’t really deduce if it is better than theory. Other manufacturers state this up front such as up to 50/50.
Not sure what went wrong in these tests, or if it only affects newer models, but both my ’03 and ’07 definitely had working 4wd, and as you say, only when I need it (which tbh is not often) which makes any argument towwards ‘real’ SUVs or Jeeps or even Subarus redundant for me. I was stupid enough to buy a house on top of a hill that more or less makes 4wd a requirement to be able to drive the last few hundre feet home in the winter (it is possible to get up with a manual shifted 2wd vehicle with decent tires with some effort, but you get really tired of doing it 3 times a day after a couple of days, if your clutch last that long…)
In some cases you may have to turn off the stability/traction control to get through the ridge that the snowplow leaves behind, but it sure beats having to move a ton of snow just to go to work in the morning.
I noticed that Honda changed the terminology of the drive train on their CR-Vs over the last decade. It went from 4WD (even on the rear badge) to AWD. I think they went for some weight reduction and money saving shavings off the rear differential without knowing the exact changes. They never disclose this sort of thing exactly, or when they do, they tell you the positive aspects only. Recently the MDX had the same treatment where they engineered the SH-AWD system to be lighter than before, but didn’t mention any changes in capacity which makes me question it in the same way. I have tried to find out exactly what they changed, but this information is not available as far as I can dig.
You know I watched that video and then watched the new CR-V on You Tube to make sure it was doing what my old CR-V was doing. It doesn’t have a 50/50 front/rear torque split. It is AWD light-duty b/c I think Honda wants it to get good mileage first and offroad capabilities second.
The important thing is that even with some less than a 50/50 torque split – the CR-V is still capable of spinning the rear tires on ice/snow/mud. Okay – so it might not spin it’s tires on dry pavement. If you need that look at something more heavy duty.
It did give me 100% of what it was able b/c the front end broke loose. On wet pavement it is easy to break the front end loose (oily pavement, leafy pavement, gravel) and the AWD definitely helps. Especially when I tow or climb steep gravel roads.
In my experience with this AWD system, I always loose traction before I loose rear axle drive (torque loss) except when I gave it a hard launch back in about 2001 on drive pavement just to see what would happen. The rear differential moaned (slipped) and it sounded just like it does when the AWD dual pump hydrualic fluid needs changing. When that point is reached, the rear diff moans a little while making u-turns and 90-degree turns.
I have never been unable to back up from a situation where I could not continue forward. AWD has worked well in those situations too.
The old 4WD vs AWD argument restarts here. Do you drive around with a full 4WD system with transfer case and make use of it 5% of the time or do you drive around with a lighter duty AWD system that better matches the needs of the average daily driver better?
Yes, pick the tool that fits your needs and expectations. Perosnally I max out my AWD from time to time (mud, ice, snow, off-road) but it has been very, very good. I would seldom need 4WD with a granny gear and 4WD-low. I have made use of 4WD-low but not enough to buy one and definitely not for family hauler duty.
Watch YouTube videos “CR-V in snow” or “CR-V in mud” and see if the vehicle will get the job done for you. The roller test is a test that showcases AWD systems that are not as MPG frugal. They are better offroad but do I need that much torque going to the rear axle? If an AWD vehicle is getting 19-20 mpg I might as well buy something larger, BoF and 4WD.
I say Honda deserves an award for bringing peace and harmony to many marriages world wide. Purchasing one of these “boring/slow” rides for your significant other can give you free reign to buy whatever fast/exciting jalop that busts your shorts, and the only time you need to wheel it is when your making yet another parts run for your own “full of character” whip. Throw in a side order of 2 wheeled mayhem if you let her pick the color and trim.
Yep. My wife tooled around town in her ’99 CR-V while I cut up the road in my ’03 Lancer Evolution. Both of us were completely happy with our respective rides.
We had a 2000 Taurus with traction control that did a great job in snow. I like the AWD better but a good front wheel drive vehicle with traction control will get you through most Winters. Honda does make a good vehicle overall.
I write about cars a little too, and as i like your vernacular and composition, I offer you some positive inspiration:
http://ingallswalter.wix.com/panda#!automobiles/c24ol
Here’s a sample:
“It’s really not about impulse, buying never really has been, it’s about accruing all the right reasons to stay happy with your decision and purchase.”