Honda Trying to make the CRV a CRX Station-Wagon [Archive] - HondaSUV Forums - Discussion forum and bulletin board for Honda CR-V, CRV, Element, Pilot, HR-V owners

colorider

01-13-2007, 06:54 PM

A fastback station-wagon with ground clearance and better AWD is still
a fastback station-wagon, not an SUV.
Compared to previous years, the 2007 has reduced rear visibility for the driver, dimensionally, -far less cargo carrying capability in the back. Sloping roof that lends to less utility if roof is equipped with a rack for cargo. Can this wagon
even support a rack now?

Five speed on the floor no longer available. The Crv is now nothing more than
a soccer mom's grocery car.

The name of this section is "Help me decide". Sounds like you have all ready decided.

So, don't buy a 2007. Simple as that!!

yochanan

01-13-2007, 10:10 PM

keithharp

01-14-2007, 04:56 AM

Sadly enough, the new CRV is no longer an SUV but
a little fastback, station-wagon full of plastic that hearkens
back to the CRX with it's lack of utility.

As someone who was looking for a replacement for their 1987 CRX when he went shopping, I can kind-of agree with some of that statement (but not the negative sentiment of it).

I loved my CRX: the quick handling, the drivability, and, yes, the utility of it. I could haul 8 ft dimensional lumber with the hatch closed. I could fit large TV/Computer type boxes in the back, etc... I wouldn't have sold it if it hadn't been that the Atlanta area emissions requirements were forcing me into $1400 worth of repairs that didn't really affect the drivability of the car.

OK, so my needs had changed somewhat. I now wanted:
1) A back seat, for my son.
2) 4 doors, so my son didn't have to crawl over me to get in the back
3) Since I keep my cars 20 years, not a fake/no leg room/no head room back seat.
4) Something comfortable for full day trips with the family that gets reasonable gas mileage, so that I can relegate my big SUV to the garage except for when it's towing, or carrying lots of stuff.
5) Keep the utility of being able to carry lumber, large boxes, etc...
6) Still be fun to drive.
7) Not quite as low as the CRX, as my knees aren't always what they used to be.

I started out looking at cars: The Mazda 6 5 door or station wagon, the Fit, Versa, Mazda3, and Matrix.

It was only when I realized that none of them were going to work for me that I moved up to the CR-V. I HOPED I would like the Gen2 better, because I like buying used. However, the Gen3 met my needs/desires better.

Both met my needs better than any of the cars I test drove, and had a lot of really positive things. However, for me, here were the differentiators:

Gen2 pros:
- Separate opening window (I can't believe they got rid of that. It was one of the deciding factors on our buying an Expedition instead of one of the other SUV's 8 years ago). I've already missed it at least once when I stopped by Home Depot for some lumber with our bikes on the hitch mounted bike rack.
- under floor storage: My CRX had a bunch of stuff stored in my underwheel storage. I still haven't figured out exactly where to put it all in the 2007 CR-V.
Gen2 cons:
I had trouble getting comfortable in the seat
More "truck-like" handling.

Gen3 pros:
I could get comfortable in the seat
I enjoyed driving it. Better handling.

By the way: I really don't understand what you are referring to about "lack of utility". It's got the ground clearance. It's got good cargo room (was Gen 2 better? I don't remember a striking difference there). With my hitch, I can carry our bikes just fine. The roof rack works fine. What utility did the Gen2 have that my Gen3 does not (other than the separately opening rear window, picnic table and underfloor storage)?

colorider

01-14-2007, 08:10 AM

As the title of this forum-subject requests, "Tell me what
I should know about the CRV?"
I'm just objectively helping others to think through what
will be a significant purchase for them, -for the best interest of
the purchaser. There might be a different Honda model that
could better suit their needs.

For someone to express any discomfort in that process
easily could be misinterpreted as cheerleading by someone who
might have a financial interest in doing so.

Not sure how you can come back with the cheerleading statement just because I'm happy with the '07 and you are not. All I suggest is that we need to be totally objective if the idea of this thread is to help others decide.

I could only WISH I had "financial interest" in Honda since I have owned over 20 Honda motorcycles in my life!

Skrapiron

01-15-2007, 06:41 AM

While I'm not a financially compensated cheerleader (as was alluded to earlier), I am a VERY satisfied 2007 CR-V owner.

I can't help but completely disagree with yochanan's opinions.

I looked at buying a CR-V in 1999 and again in 2003. I passed both times. Primarily because of the barn-door and tail-gate mounted spare. But also for the lack of power, unrefined, loud ride, uncomfortable seats and the dashboard layout. Frankly, they 'joystick' parking brake reminded me too much of the old Toyota dash brakes that were in the SR5 pickups in the '80s. The gen 1 design was boxy and uninspired, the gen 2 design looked too much like a mini-pilot.

I for one think Honda got it right in the Gen3. The cargo volume is nearly identical to the cargo volume of the previous two generations. It has an improved 4wd system, a better ride, a more powerful engine, more stability and more interior refinement. What's not to like?

I don't miss the 'Masculine lines' that alot of the detractors use as a reason to hate the Gen 3. Frankly, if I wanted a Jeep look-alike, I'd just as soon buy a jeep.

I don't worry about how COOL cars look anymore. I want reliability over performance, economy over coolness and most of all, comfort. The Gen3 delivers on all accounts.

etc

01-15-2007, 12:46 PM

amen to that :)

Niea

01-15-2007, 01:28 PM

I would say, then, in response to your criticisms that the '07 CR-V is not for you. Great you realized that before you bought one! I'm sure there's something else out there that's acceptable to you -- now go and get that one!

But for every one of you that jumps ship, there's one of me that joins. The '07 is the first CR-V I considered buying. I've had mine for a week and am very, very happy with it!

yochanan

01-15-2007, 01:39 PM

By the previous two opinions, Honda clearly hit the mark by
turning what was previously an SUV into a little
fastback station-wagon.
Their marketing team is usually spot-on!

sleeksilver

01-15-2007, 01:54 PM

By the previous two opinions, Honda clearly hit the mark by
turning what was previously an SUV into a little
fastback station-wagon.
Their marketing team is usually spot-on!

??????????????
Again, I don't understand. Please check your facts. :?

This CRV is a STRONG seller. You should take a look at the sales figures before forming your own opinion on if the G3 CRV is selling well or not.

http://www.hondanews.com/CatID1007?mid=2007010355967&mime=asc

Their marketing team IS spot on, and the sales prove that. Fastback station wagon or not.

4000th POST!!!!!!
I am a post whore, and I like it :-P

Skrapiron

01-15-2007, 02:12 PM

yochanan,

So, what's your opinion of mini-vans? Too girly to even consider, right?

I got news for you. If you want chisled, masculine lines go buy a Jeep. Don't expect much by way of reliability or resale value, but they look cool. For that matter, why not a Range Rover or a Hummer H3?

If you want functional, comfortable, reliable transportation stick with Honda.

You and your ilk just kills me.....

Oh, and by the way I'm not a mom, and neither of my kids play soccer... So much for that stereo-type........

yochanan

01-15-2007, 09:42 PM

I'm stumped as to why any of you are taking umbrage at
my comments.

I'm being very complimentary when I
say that the new CRV is a fine little car.--Far more handy at the laundromat
now that the pesky, dirty, spare tire is out of the way.

Beat's a Subaru Forrester, hands down in being able to carry
a 2X4 on top, too. You are all entirely too sensitive.

central jersey steve

01-16-2007, 07:36 AM

I have been driving for 35 years and have owned a wide variety of maunfacturers and vehicles: nissan, toyota, renault, dodge, chrysler, pontiac, chevy, jeep, caddilac, suzuki, subaru, saturn, hyundai, oldsmobile, volvo. I have owned two door, four door, 5 door (hatch), minivans, station wagons, sedans, coupes, and SUV's.

I traded in a 2004 Hyundai Sante Fe (SUV, I do believe ;) ) for the 07 CR-V. I have purchased many a new car that has not lived up to my expectations within a very short time of my purchase, but the CR-V is possibly the best vehicle I have ever owned. I drive a 135 miles a day communting to and from work and the car is a delight to drive. I wanted a reliable, SAFE, comfortable, feature rich, afforable mode of transportation and the CR-V fills the bill, on all counts.

I am not sure what a "little fast-back station wagon" is, but the CR-V is neither little nor is it a station wagon (and while it has good pick-up, I wouldn't call it fast either :) ). IMHO, it is a "cross over" suv type of vehicle, which is the type of vehicle for those that do not need to drive on the beach, cross small bodies of water, climb mountain peaks, or tow large structures or small skycrapers. For those that need to do any of these things on a consistent basis, there are all those true, (non-crossover) SUVS that will perform all of those tasks w/distinction.

Anyway, I love the CR-V. It is roomy, comfortable, reliable, and safe, and I could not be more satisified w/my selection.

yochanan

01-16-2007, 11:54 AM

The term "crossover suv" is just a marketing term to
replace what we've all known as the --"Station-Wagon".
In most cases, they are even smaller than what was previously known
as a stationwagon, albeit not quite as utilitarian as the SW.
The 07 CRV is about the same size as what used to be the Accord Wagon, perhaps a little taller but
not any longer with any greater seating capacity or visibility.
The fact that you like or love your new CRV does not have any
bearing on the fact that Honda has created a new AWD "Station-Wagon"
Let it roll off your tongues a few times while driving your new
CRV and you will discover that it fits quite nicely.

For the sake of history,
the term "station-wagon" was originally coined to name the
horse-drawn wagons that, in the 19th century, would transport
hotel guests from an hotel to the train station. I'm not sure that
the 07 CRV would even be up to the load requirements for such a
task today.
In most cases, they are even smaller than what was previously known
as a stationwagon. The 07 CRV is about the same size as
what used to be the Accord Wagon, perhaps a little taller.

keithharp

01-16-2007, 12:36 PM

The term "crossover suv" is just a marketing term to
replace what we've all known as the --"Station-Wagon".

I do agree that the line is very blurry, and that because Station Wagon is currently out of fashion, that whenever possible, marketers prefer the term "crossover suv". The Matrix is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

The 07 CRV is about the same size as what used to be the Accord Wagon, perhaps a little taller but
not any longer with any greater seating capacity or visibility.

I don't know where you get the idea that station wagons are supposed to have less seating capacity that SUVs. There are way too many counter examples to that. You seem to be fixated on some idea that an SUV HAS to be big to be an SUV. Does this mean you also do not consider the Jeep Wrangler an SUV?

Unless you are a purist who considers all car-platform unibody based SUVs to be non-SUVs (which you evidently are not, since you consider the previous CR-Vs to be SUVs in your original post), I don't see where the 2007 CRV crosses that line (or for that matter, what the big hairy deal is as to what you call it).

Personally, I don't care whether it's called a crossover, car-based SUV, or AWD Wagon. I can't figure out why a Subaru Outback is a wagon, but a Forester is an SUV.

Ground clearance is usually another differentiator, but the CRV splits the difference there: An Accord Wagon had 6.4 inches of ground clearance, where the 2006 CRV had 8.1 and the 2007 drops to 7.3.

In my personal opinion, the CRV looks more like an SUV than a wagon. You disagree, which is fine. However, I don't understand why you're so insistent about it.

central jersey steve

01-16-2007, 12:39 PM

I owned a 2002 Subaru Forrester, one of the original "crossover" SUV's. I am sure that a good many people would use your assessment and refer to the Forrester as a station wagon. The same could very well be said of the Subaru Outback as well.

I have driven in many a station wagon in the 60's, 70's, 80's and beyond. The CR-V is not a station wagon. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, especially since you are the only source that I have heard voice such an assessment. I have not read nor heard any similar view point in any forum, publication, or any other "editorial" source. I have shown the CR-V to a great many people, and not one has said, "Oh my, what a lovely station wagon that is".

If you wish to describe the CR-V as a station wagon, that is your right, but your opinion in describing it as one, does not make it one. But to your point, I did have a horse try to hitch itself to the front of the CR-V and pull it to the train station. I am sure if the horse had been Mr. Ed, he would have complimented me on my fine choice of a station wagon. ;)

Skrapiron

01-16-2007, 02:06 PM

Wow!

For some reason, I feel like slapping some tacky faux-woodgrain on the sides of my CRV and screwing some god-awful hood ornament right in the middle of the front. I wonder where I can get one of those MACK bulldogs or something like that?

I had no idea I was suckered into buying a station wagon. Boy, I'm so happy that someone finally told me.

Since I own such a sissy auto, I guess I have to drain my testosterone, put on a pink shirt, cashmere cardigan and penny loafers, while I take my toy poodle to the groomer.

This guy kills me! For the love of Henry Ford, it's a car-based cross over SUV. It always has been. Always will be. It can't scale sheer rock faces, bounce down creek beds or wade out into the ocean very far. It's not intended to! If you want to go mud bogging, buy a Bronco, not a CRV.

The gen 3 CRV is by far the BEST CRV to date. It is larger, more econimical, more powerful, safer, quieter and FINALLY has a useable back door.

I am really getting SICK AND TIRED of the people who don't own one and have no intention of ever owning one that keep running the Gen3 down. If you don't like it: LEAVE!!! There's a Dodge/Jeep dealer not very far from most Honda dealers. If you need a testosterone injection go there!!!!!

yochanan

01-16-2007, 02:34 PM

I'm not quite sure why but it took two pages worth of posts to finally
get people to think and write with their brain's and sense of humor
instead of their emotions.
Thanks to the last 3 posters for finally jumping in. I thoroughly
enjoyed it. Well thought out and accurate arguments, one and all.

I'm merely trying to help people think a little and not jump onto
cultural bandwagons like using the sporty-yuppie term "crossover suv"
when what they've bit into has it's roots in their grandfather's
Ford wagon.
Yes, of course the 07 may be every bit of an SUV as the previous
years, I admit. But I built a small barn last summer with the materials
I hauled 50 miles, in and on top of my 03 CRV. It handled the task
with aplomb and versatility. I don't think I would attempt the same
with an 07. It just does not appear to big enough or tough enough
of an SUV to handle what my 03 did.
Of course, it wasn't designed for such but flexability of having the squared
off back end for loading materials inside, and the flat top for loading lumber
and roofing materials on top, was a valuable plus.
Yes, I love my 03 but I'm amazed that so many would jump, waving their
cash for something that is more "pretty" than purposeful.
Thanks for the good humor.....Those of you that have it.

yochanan

01-16-2007, 08:37 PM

Nice to see you now happy with your v after
the problems you initially had that you talked of
in other posts in ("Issues and Complaints")...Say's a lot for the vehicle
that it could win back your loyalty after such an
experience.

Skrapiron

01-17-2007, 12:28 PM

Actually, I'm tickled pink with the functionality of my Gen3 V.

To date, it has hauled a glider rocker w/matching ottoman, a La-Z-Boy recliner, a reclining loveseat, 2 adult deer (one doe and one buck- during deer gun season), 35 2x4x8 interior studs, 10 50 lb bags of sand 10, 80 lb bags of concrete, a clothes dryer, a desk chair, a canoe, an air compressor, 8 sets of snow tires, all of my parts for work (consisting of 5 36x24x24 totes, 6 18x8x10 tool boxes, a laptop, my toolbag and 2 14" computer monitors), my dogs and family on a week long trip across the country, and, oh yeah, gorceries too.

It has even ventured off the pavement a time or two going down trails to campsites, fishing holes and was even used to haul my brother-in-laws deer out of a gully.

I tend to use the UTILITY more often than the sport in my SUV....

sleeksilver

01-17-2007, 12:35 PM

2 adult deer (one doe and one buck- during deer gun season.

mmmm venison! wanna send some my way????
:D

yochanan

01-17-2007, 01:55 PM

Wow...
Now that's "utility".

But I didn't see 1 moose or bigfoot in the list.

chrisk_352

01-17-2007, 03:37 PM

yochanan,

It seems like all you've done was irritate the hell out of everybody that owns 07 CR-V. You keep saying, it's a firendly comment about what 07 CR-V represents, however, your terminalogy seems to indicate 07 CR-V is a sissy car. Well, it might have started as a friendly comment, but your tone and wording turned into a something else.

I like my CR-V for what it does and what it represents. If I wanted an off-road SUV as you seems to represent, I would've gone out and bought a pure off road SUV such as Jeep/Hummer/Mercedes G class. Then, you would've got a SUV that drove like a truck. Most people that bought CR-V probably wanted a SUV that drove like a car with 4WD so that they could go up skiing and such. For that matter why do you even have 03 CR-V if you wanted tough and rough SUV? since it sure isn't one either.

yochanan

01-17-2007, 09:18 PM

From the ongoing defensive tone of some
of the contributors, one might think that they come
to this forum for needed affirmation rather than
reading truthful buying perspectives.

Group hugs everyone! We ALL did the right thing. Enjoy your Crv's
as much as the rest of us do.
And remember, "You're good enough, smart enough, and dog-gone it, people
like both you and your Crv".
Many of you BaDLY need a sense of humor.....but that's ok...I'm not being critical.
(and I'm not even using the word "hell")

Where's that moose? Let's get the moose in here too for the group hug.
Ahhh yeah.....

Polly

01-17-2007, 09:59 PM

First let me say I am planning on buying a CR-V no matter what "others" want to call it, however for those who prefer to think of crossovers as merely stationwagons, I have included a list of recent/current crossovers from Wikipedia. I don't know most of these vehicles by name, but after looking up pictures most of them, they don't look like station wagons to me. I also didn't see any of them being pulled by a horse.

MINI CROSSOVER SUVS--
Daihatsu Terios
Daihatsu Xenia
Fiat Sedici
Ford EcoSport
Honda HR-V
Mitsubishi Pajero Mini
Suzuki SX4
Toyota Avanza
Volkswagen CrossFox
COMPACT CROSSOVER SUVS--
Acura RDX
BMW X3
Ford Escape
Honda CR-V
Honda Element
Hyundai Tucson
Kia Sportage
Jeep Compass
Land Rover Freelander
Mazda Tribute
Mercury Mariner
Mitsubishi Outlander
Nissan X-Trail
Nissan Qashqai
Nissan Rogue
Pontiac Vibe
Saturn Vue
Subaru Forester
Suzuki Grand Vitara
Tata Safari
Toyota RAV4
MID-SIZE CROSSOVER SUVs---
Acura MDX
BMW X5
Buick Rendezvous
Cadillac SRX
Chevrolet Equinox
Chrysler Pacifica
Ford Freestyle
Ford Edge
Honda Pilot
Hyundai Santa Fe
Infiniti FX
Kia Sorento
Land Rover Range Rover Sport
Lexus RX
Lincoln MKX
Mazda CX-7
Mercedes-Benz M-Class
Mitsubishi Endeavor
Nissan Murano
Pontiac Torrent
Porsche Cayenne
Saab 9-6X
Subaru B9 Tribeca
Subaru Outback
Toyota Highlander
Volkswagen Touareg
Volvo XC90
FULL-SIZE CROSSOVER SUVS---
Audi Q7
Buick Enclave
Ford Fairlane
GMC Acadia
Hyundai Veracruz
Mazda CX-9
Mercedes-Benz GL-Class
Mercedes-Benz R-Class
Saturn Outlook

yochanan

01-17-2007, 10:36 PM

Wikipedia is put together by contributors who
identify common usage. One can't look at the
Mercury Mariner and say that it's a "crossover"
without a smirk on their face.

...Grandfather's Taurus Wagon by any other name.....does not
EvEn smell as sweet......

The term "crossover" is all about sales.
..."Ford Fairlane" now that's a good one........

keithharp

01-18-2007, 07:44 AM

One can't look at the
Mercury Mariner and say that it's a "crossover"
without a smirk on their face.
OK, now you've got my curiosity up. What IS your definition of an SUV?

chrisk_352

01-18-2007, 10:47 AM

yochanan,

Now you are being sarcastic. Make it up with us sissy people.

sleeksilver

01-18-2007, 12:43 PM

http://www.automotivetech.org/at/images/smilies/ttis.gif

plain and simple.

fox22

01-19-2007, 03:51 PM

I gotta say I agree with yochanan's point of view. When Honda introduced the CRV in 1996/1997 they took a step out of line from their traditional automobiles. It was the CRV that spawned the Element, Pilot, and even the Ridgeline. It was the first step in a new realm of Hondas. When the CRV was concieved and introduced it was supposed to be a fun sporty but affordable vehicle. It had features like a picnic table in the back for outdoor trips and "picnics", it had ample ground clearance for driving around in sand at the beach - noflimsy pastic parts to break loose underneath (gen2) It had a fun sporty/happy look to it wereas the gen3 looks like a fat smiling idiot about to stick his hand out and say "pull my finger". The gen 1 had the spare tire on the back - a feature unique to jeeps and larger offroad vehicles. As such, it had a waterproof storage tub underneath for muddy boots, brewskis, or the day's catch at the lake. The seats folded into a bed so that you didn't even need a tent on your camping trips.

All in all the CRV began life as a fun yet Confortable Recreational Vehicle. It reached it's peak (in my opinion) in 1999-2001, and then it went downhill until the gen3 killed the CRV's spirit and ended up as any other *NOT SUV* but MPV - multi purpose vehicle. Not much more than Mazda's MPV - a minivan with AWD. This is of course my opinion, but for those of us, especially those who are outdoors people, and enjoy playing in our element, the generation 3 has lost the adventurous spirit of the gen 1 and 2. I was really hoping honda would bring the old CRV back with the gen3, but instead I am heartbroken that I will probably never drive another CRV. In the meantime, I take pride in the idea that I drive a 1997, decade-old Honda classic.

RichK

01-19-2007, 06:23 PM

In my five years driving my 02V and few months in the 07V, the overwhelming majority of drivers I have seen in all three generations of CRV's have been women.

Also in RAV's, Foresters, and most other small suv's.......women.

I don't think the target buyer for this class of vehicles by the manufacturers' has been the adventurous outdoor type. (although I'm sure some women are).

That said, my "fat smiling idiot" (fox22 opinion) 07V has enough utility and especially safety for me. And maybe some other males.:)

fox22

01-19-2007, 08:41 PM

Maybe you just don't notice the other guys for the obvious reason... -I'm a young heterosexual male- I definitely notice women more than men driving CRVs ;)

I really think that the whole gender thing is trivial.

etc

01-20-2007, 11:20 AM

and so is the whole "real suv"-"station wagon" thing
times are changing - and so is automobile design
tyres on the back are passe

yochanan

01-20-2007, 01:23 PM

I would agree...."spare tires on the back are Passe'"--for the family
Station Wagon.
With the Olds station-wagon tailgate, what we are really looking at
is the end of the CRV. They should have just been honest about it
and not tried to tag-on a legacy that is not there for this wagon.
It should have been renamed.

Yeah it would be hard for Honda to advertise,
"You are soooo ready for a New Honda station-wagon"
Or....
a
"Ask your blogger if the new little-blue Honda Station-Wagon is right for you."
"Warning: Side effects could include a mediocre lifestyle you've not
experienced since the late 60's"

"Passe'" generates billions for the auto industry.

fox22

01-20-2007, 02:22 PM

:roll: I didn't think the tire on the back was passe when I had one of my Michelin Harmonys blow out on the 401 and I just popped the spare off the back without unloading the car, changed it in 10 mins and finished my trip with confidence because I was riding on a full-size spare. Or when I picked up an old snowmobile stud out on the trails - I put the spare on quickly and easily - and didn't have to put the flat one covered in mud and ice back inside the car. I also didn't think it was passe when a Chevy avalanche decided to run up against the back of the car in a drive-through so he could make his order 20 secs sooner. Its also not passe when I check my tire pressures - I bet you that 80% of 2007 CRV owners will check the pressure in their spare less than once a year because it is out of sight/ out of mind, or just too much work to get to. Also If I didn't have the spare on the outside of the car, I wouldn't have a place for my: booster cables, spare fuel, 10lb fire extinguisher, folding snow shovel, 4 10000lb tow straps, a ratchet winch, air compressor, first aid kit, and trailer hitch hardware in the storage space under the floor...

You say having a spare tire on the back is passe - hey why not just get rid of it all together! you hardly use it anyway, and I bet you 80% of people would just call CAA or AAA to come to their rescue anyway :-P. The spare tire on the outside has far more advantages to it than disadvantages - oooo how ugly! a tire on the back :rolleyes:

OSX2000

01-20-2007, 02:51 PM

the gen3 looks like a fat smiling idiot about to stick his hand out and say "pull my finger".
http://www.automotivetech.org/at/images/smilies/rofl2.gifhttp://www.automotivetech.org/at/images/smilies/rofl2.gifhttp://www.automotivetech.org/at/images/smilies/rofl2.gif

etc

01-20-2007, 05:53 PM

You say having a spare tire on the back is passe - hey why not just get rid of it all together! you hardly use it anyway, and I bet you 80% of people would just call CAA or AAA to come to their rescue anyway.

exactly - id dump it any time - i just drag it around because the law says so
have better things to do than changing tires you know :)

OSX2000

01-20-2007, 06:30 PM

It can't [...] wade out into the ocean very far.
Really? My V loves the ocean. And I went a lot further out than my sig shows.

norsepanda

01-20-2007, 09:03 PM

Honda Trying to make the CRV a CRX Station-Wagon?

to which i reply, what is wrong w/ that?
Station-Wagon, SUV, SAV, whatever. you shouldn't buy a vehicle for what it's called, but for what it can do for you.

fox22

01-20-2007, 09:18 PM

i just drag it around because the law says so

OH NO! Here come the spare tire police!!! I'd like to see how often they enforce/check if someone carries a spare :roll:

Racoon

01-20-2007, 09:24 PM

OH NO! Here come the spare tire police!!! I'd like to see how often they enforce/check if someone carries a spare :roll:
I think that would depend on whether your state/country does annual safety inspections of all vehicles.

:)

fox22

01-20-2007, 09:44 PM

Some of us have a very different view of our CRVs because we have dared to push the envelope and see how far we can take our cars. Most use them as normal everyday cars to get themselves to work and run errands. These people will confidently denounce their CRVs because they haven't seen their vehicle's full potential (I am talking about gen1 and 2) I am confident that I have been to every extreme of my CRV - I have rallied it offroad, I have autocrossed it, field crossed it, ice raced it, towwed a trailer weighing over 2 tonnes at 80m/h for 10kms, driven it myself 4000kms in 4 days. It hangs around Jeeps all the time and is never left behind on the trails. It has crossed frozen lakes, plowed through mud holes, clawed through snow, waded through streams and never skipped a beat. All of this on top of being driven nearly every day of it's life getting my butt to work, school, and yes, to the grocery store. When I see a 2007 show me the same sort of performance in half of these "above and beyond" tasks I'll agree it is an SUV. But until that, I object to those who call the previous CRVs as passe they are nothing but.

Most people I know (who don't know cars too well) refer to my gen1 as "Oh you have a Jeep?". If those same people saw a 2007 CRV, they would call it a van... :-P

fox22

01-20-2007, 09:45 PM

I'm goin' back to the 1997-2006 forums - less typing ;)

etc

01-21-2007, 02:43 PM

I'm goin' back to the 1997-2006 forums - less typing

going back to the past? see - thats passe all over ;)

kacang

04-02-2007, 05:49 AM

As a previous owner of a Gen 1 and now a Gen 2, I must say I was sad to let my Gen 1 go and needed to get used to the shape and body of the Gen 2. Also Gen 2 had much more hard plastics inside as my Gen 1. But I've come to love the Gen 2, with some shortcomings such as less leg room in passenger seat and some other small things. However I have to agree with some of the posters that the Gen 3 sahpe/design, is moving towards a Honda Stream MPV kind of car. I personally do not like the smallish sloped rear windows and overall would not categorize it as a SUV, they seems to have striken a compromise between the lines of a Toyota Harrier/honda stream. The Gen 3 just doesn't tickle my fancy. Now I know for sure it is an excellent car, as honda always makes, and some people may love it. But I think we can all settle for the idea that you can't argue with taste. My Gen 2 has been through over 3+ feet of water with no ill effect during jakarta floods. I would need to have a closer look at the innards of the new 07 CR-V and see if it retains all good features, such as a high up air-intake, ground clearance, double rubber seals on doors etc etc.

I'll be driving my 05 2.4lt 5 gear automatic for some years to come and maybe honda will have a newer CR-V then that WILL tickle my fancy.

My 2 cents worth !

Erick Otto
jakarta

tww1491

04-03-2007, 08:57 AM

We test drove the CRV as a possible replacement for my wife's 03 Pilot. The salesman described our interest as a move down the "prestige" ladder to an entry-level SUV. Certainly, that is what the CRV is -- a comfortable (more so than our 0-3 Pilot), well-appointed vehicle that provides a lot value for the money. The I4 that works well in the Accord (I have an 0-6 I4 EX coupe) is a bit strained in the CRV, probably because it is heavier. But, the performance is adequate. The leather seats were far more comfortable than the cloth for some reason and a great improvement over our Pilot. In sum, a very agreeable vehicle despite it's rather disparaging "entry-level" label accorded it by Honda.
Unless you have to have a SUV, an Accord sedan is really a better choice.

hectory

04-17-2007, 01:42 PM

WHY THE 07 CRV?, I'll let you know why we (wife and me) moved from gen 2.5 to 3:
-Has curtain airbags (gen 2.5 don't)
-Has VSA (gen 2.5 don't)
-Lower gravity center
-Wider track
-Better handling
-Nicer interiors
-Safer structure
-Revised RT4WD
-Can fit 3 child support systems on rear seat

At least this is in Mexico, because I know that, for example, VSA was available in the US way before gen3.

So if you are looking for a more sofisticated and safer V, gen 3 is the way to go. If not, just stay with the gen you have right now.

ISN'T THIS EASY?? :D

sleeksilver

04-17-2007, 05:50 PM

The salesman described our interest as a move down the "prestige" ladder to an entry-level SUV.

That's because the moronic salesman wanted you to spend more money. :roll: I hate salespeople.

Niea

04-17-2007, 08:15 PM

We test drove the CRV as a possible replacement for my wife's 03 Pilot. The salesman described our interest as a move down the "prestige" ladder to an entry-level SUV.

Forget the "entry-level" misnomer. They are two distinct vehicles with two distinct purposes. Buy the one that meets your needs.

Now, I love my V as much as the next person but does anyone really buy a Honda for "prestige"? Seriously, it's not a Lexus or BMW or Mercedes. Honda is what it is and it's products do what they do (and do them very well), but if I was merely aiming for prestige I wouldn't get any Honda at all.

Besides, why is the Pilot supposed to be more prestigious than the V? Because it's bigger? Most of the world's "prestigious" vehicles are smaller, not larger.

Don't buy into the salesperson's baloney. . .just remember he's just trying to earn his commission and nothing more.

fox22

04-21-2007, 10:18 AM

The newest article posted in the "News" section pretty much sums up what the new CRV is....

The article is titled :
Honda's most luxurious Civic wagon goes fast, with small-car finesse

...I usually cruise highways. But circumstances required us to switch roles in our evaluation of the 2007 Honda Civic CR-V EX-L -- another station wagon masquerading as a sport-utility model...

Sooooo, yeah - welcome to the world of luxury station wagons??

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070421/AUTO03/704210301/1149

sleeksilver

04-21-2007, 10:26 AM

Yeah, I saw that article. It is still an SUV.

Crinale

04-22-2007, 02:10 AM

i agree, with the amount of interior room, it is very difficult to say the crv has no utility (unless hes comparing it to a excursion or suburban :roll: ). even with some of the changed styling cues (some of which i dont like personally, some i do) the crv is still a good crossover "suv" (i agree mpv is more accurate) with more utility than most people will ever use.

as far as "its now a soccer mom grocery getter"... thats what the aim for the crv has been since its inception... some of us have altered that view, but hondas purpose for the crv was exactly that

whichever gen crv u drive, theres no need to bash on another person's choice in vehicles just because its not your thing... probably means u arent in hondas target market for the gen3. Every person here is a Honda fan, as iv figured out most crv drivers are, so any honda is a good decision. dont hate just because someone disagrees with u.

the gen 2 design looked too much like a mini-pilot.

i couldnt disagree more with that... i think the gen1 looked more like a pilot than the gen2s did...

my biggest beef with the gen3 is the looks (personal preference). I like the "classic" suv look to my gen1, although i wish i had the power of the k24 engine in the gen2 and 3...

also, just to correct the OP, the crv is a hatchback/wagon... not a fast back. an acura integra/rsx is a fastback.

i also agree with fox... the gen1 crv is an amazingly underestimated and capable vehicle... when i take mine off the beaten path (i take my crv farther off road than most 4runners will ever see) i run out of guts before my crv does. Once in a while i find something that i say to myself, "ehh, i better not." but my crv hasnt failed to do anything iv instructed it too, including deep beach sand, sloppy mud, snow, rocks, deep stream crossing, steep inclines, dirt road rallying, etc. and it still manages to drive me to work and school everyday in safety and comfort ;)

Racoon

04-22-2007, 09:22 AM

the gen 2 design looked too much like a mini-pilot.
i couldnt disagree more with that... i think the gen1 looked more like a pilot than the gen2s did...
But since the 1st Gen CR-Vs came before the Pilot I believe the Pilot looks like a 1st Gen CR-V on steroids.

:D

fox22

04-22-2007, 02:12 PM

But since the 1st Gen CR-Vs came before the Pilot I believe the Pilot looks like a 1st Gen CR-V on steroids.

:D

agreed - thats why I loved the pilot when it came out.. but now, for some reason, when I see one, they just seem boring-looking to me.

Uncle Smitty

05-28-2007, 01:58 AM

sleeksilver

05-28-2007, 07:50 AM

1. For all the 3rd gen fans who crow about "improvements," enjoy yourselves when you get a flat some night during a blizzard and you have to unload your whole car to dig out the miniature donut spare tire.

2. Enjoy closing that clamshell when you have groceries in one hand and a baby in the other.

3. Honda flat-out wrecked this vehicle.

1. What are the chances of that, honestly? I would hardly call it digging. I bet I could get to it just as fast as it would take you to unzip and unbolt that tire on the back of the previous generations.

2. I wouldn't risk multitasking with my child in my arm. Sorry.

3. The general public strongly disagrees.

kurv

05-28-2007, 08:51 AM

Honda flat-out wrecked this vehicle.

What a typical post from you. In the short time I've been on this forum, I've noticed that you only post on the '07 sub-forum when the topic gives you an opportunity to state how much you dislike the '07 V. The people that hang out here are '07 owners, or at least interested in the model. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and their own tastes, but I don't think that anyone here really cares to read your repeated posts about how much you dislike the current model, even if you come up with a different way of saying it every time.

RichK

05-28-2007, 09:06 AM

Honda flat-out wrecked this vehicle.

The public must like the way Honda "wrecked" it, because it is now the best selling SUV in the country.:rolleyes:

sleeksilver

05-28-2007, 09:13 AM

:lol: .

Racoon

05-28-2007, 09:45 AM

The public must like the way Honda "wrecked" it, because it is now the best selling SUV in the country.:rolleyes:
Yes it is, and congratulations to Honda!

I, however, am not a lemming. The 2007 CR-V is, IMO, one of the three (3) ugliest vehicles in production (the other two are the Buick Rendezvous and the Pontiac Aztec).

JM2C

dreese9859

05-28-2007, 10:42 AM

Honda flat-out wrecked this vehicle.

You should go on with those diatribes directly to Honda if you want to see results. Most of us don't mind having a smaller spare, we'd rather have a lift-up tailgate, and we don't want to take a wanna-be off-roading, grocery getter off-road. It's very simple to understand - enough with insulting people for buying a car <b>THEY</b> want. We didn't design it, Honda did.

I see other cars that seem useless to me, but I don't insult the person who drives it. They bought it, they will drive it. Keep your opinions friendly. The Gen 1 is one of the ugliest vehicles I've seen, but I won't say it to offend because it's my unvaluable opinion.

megarapier

05-28-2007, 09:04 PM

Every vehicle is targeted for different demographic group. In Singapore itself the former Gen1 attracts more female driver and the Gen2 a good mix while the Gen 3 is the only model that has a predominantly male crowd, so far. (So if we judge by the crowd it attracts averaged out, I guess all CRV drivers are sissies, including myself, hmmmm, pass me the compact, I need to powder my face, kiss, kiss).

This is my 5th car and I have driven including , mini, hatchbacks, sedan, MPV and this is the first time an SUV and I chose the CRV (was never attracted to it before until now). In our country, the CRV is probably one of the most expensive Japanese SUV that money can buy at USD 66,000 for the 2.4L fully loaded version. It is by no means a vehicle you use to go grocery shopping or run errands. I was contemplating on getting the RAV4 until I spoke to my buddy who has been in car business (not selling Honda but Mercedes) that told me that spec to spec, for SUV, CRV is the best buy yet (They test every car in the market, anyway he won't get a single dollar by me buying a CRV). Honda cars also command a premium as it fetches the best resale value in the second hand car market in Singapore especially a SUV.

One month into owning my CRV and loving every minute of it be it a stationwagon (Some intelligent guy came up with this)??or a horse drawn carriage....

mdugan7000

05-28-2007, 09:47 PM

Wow. In Singapore it's a man's car. In the US, it is a woman's car and has been from since 1997. That being said, we own 2 and my in-laws own 2 - theirs are both 2006's. 2 men, 2 women.

skyout

05-29-2007, 07:21 AM

Are you trying to get the in-laws to move to Singapore??? LOL

vhercules

05-30-2007, 10:01 AM

sleeksilver

05-30-2007, 10:02 AM

There is so much "perception" of the 07 crv being not capable of what gen 1 or gen 2 Vs could do in terms of utility. I call this a perception as has anyone actually tried pushing the 07 CRV and comparing it with the older Vs ??

That would be a no, and I'm sure it would be more capable seeing as how it has the improved RT-4WD system. Anyone care to loan your G3 to OSX or Fox??? :lol:

Crinale

05-30-2007, 11:48 AM

haha! all i can say, is the BIGGEST limiting factor of the g3, would be the reduced ground clearance. my gen1 still bottoms out from time to time... (and with my bigger tires im at about 8.75" ground clearance from 8.1 stock)

if one could remedy the ground clearance, id bet the g3 would be decent off road, especially since they redesigned the chassis to be MUCH stiffer than the previous generations, and with slightly more power, and Realtime that kicks in almost instantly...

megarapier

06-01-2007, 03:00 AM

Are you trying to get the in-laws to move to Singapore??? LOL
Hmmm.... Good Idea here.....

utah

06-09-2007, 09:35 PM

If folks are happy with the 07 CRV's that's great.

But, count me in with those that can't understand what Honda was thinking. I have an 04 CRV, that I'm very happy with. However, unlike a lot of folks....I only drive my cars 3-4 years ( because of business reasons ). I would have definitely purchased a new CRV, had they not completly re-vamped it into a vehicle that I just can't warm up to.

There are just too many changes with the Gen-3 that I don't like. Lower ground clearance, mini-spare inside the vehicle, sloping rear windows and roof-line, and a completely wacked out front-end that makes me think the Gen-3 CRV looks like a PT Cruiser.

I'm not the only Gen-2 V-owner that has these opinions. I know quite a few that are coming due for new vehicles, and not one of us is considering a Gen-3.

Again...I'm not knocking those who love their new Gen-3's. I'm just saying that I dislike this vehicle so much, that I'll be forced to not purchase a Honda this time around. That disappoints me, because I've been thrilled with my Gen-2.

I kick my ass for not buying an 06 V when I could still find a new EXL at my local dealer. But, back in 06 I was looking forward to the redesigned Gen-2. I just didn't expect what Honda delivered with this change. I know lots of folks are buying Gen-3's...but, I won't be one.

andyfr

06-10-2007, 01:20 AM

kurv

06-11-2007, 12:32 PM

Well I think for every previous gen CR-V owner who doesn't like the gen 3 there is at least one coming from other marques. I never liked the look of the previous gens CR-Vs and so I had Freelanders. It's only this new one which has attracted me and I will be picking mine up next week. :)

Andyfr

Yes. I can see not liking the '07 if you like the look of the previous V gens. People do have different tastes. I didn't dislike the old style, just didn't do anything for me. I'm not attracted to the '07 just for looks, but I do like the style. And I understand people being dissapointed because they want a new Honda V and can't bring themselves to buy the one Honda designed. But what is the point of coming to the '07 forum and saying how ugly they think it is. No one wants to buy a new car and have someone say 'yuck, what an ugly car'. There's a nice, big '97-'06 V forum right here on this site, where I'm sure many '07 haters reside. It would never occur to me to go there and say that I think the gen 1 and/or 2 is ugly, even if I thought it was.

Yes utah, we're happy with the '07. We're sorry you're not. But please complain about it on the other forum and have some consideration for those who don't want their new car called ugly. And it's not just you. You're just the latest of way too many. :roll:

utah

06-12-2007, 08:40 PM

Yes utah, we're happy with the '07. We're sorry you're not. But please complain about it on the other forum and have some consideration for those who don't want their new car called ugly. And it's not just you. You're just the latest of way too many. :roll:

Respectfully, I never called the Gen 3 CRV ugly. I said there were too many design changes from Gen 2 to Gen 3 that I didn't like, and while I did call the new front end 'wacked out'.....that's obviously a personal opinion.

You know....many of us that purchased Gen 2 CRV's sifted through post after post on this same forum, from Gen 1 owners who greatly disliked the styling in the Generation 2. It certainly never bothered me, what other folks thought about Gen 2 CRV's. I was happy with mine, and that was all that mattered.

This part of the forum is: Help me Decide on a 2007 CRV. I've read numerous threads in this part of the forum, because I'll be up for a new vehicle sometime soon. Because my 04 V has been such a great vehicle, and because it's my third new Honda.....the 07 CRV is a natural to at least consider.

As part of that consideration process....I read the threads on this forum from current owners of 2007 V's.

After considering the prospect of purchasing a 07 V, I won't be buying one....for the reasons that I mentioned. My reasons for not buying one, shouldn't in my opinion affect you....if you bought one and you're happy.

However, you should understand ( in my opinion ) that many Honda CRV owners are disappointed in the new direction the V has gone in terms of styling and utility. That's simply a fact of life, and pruning the discussion to take away negative reactions to the 2007 CRV doesn't change that.

andylo

06-12-2007, 10:07 PM

A newbie Gen 2 CRV owner here... hi :)

Just quickly share my view on Gen2 and Gen3.

For me and my wife, we need a big car for our new family (will have a baby soon in few weeks time)

Then we both looked at the gen2 and gen3 CRV, and obviously the gen2 won our contest, for a few reason.

1) Gen2 seems to be taller, a bigger. For example, I am a golfer, with the gen2 I can just simply put my bag in the boot without any troubles, but with gen3, I need to take out my driver/woods (longer clubs) before I can put the bag in.

2) Wife can easily access to back seat by putting the console table down, and walk to back seat without getting off the vehicle. But its harder to do in gen3 due to the new center console.

3) We can sort of "stand" in the gen2 CRV, not in the gen3

4) gen2 got a table at the back, gen3 don't

5) the extra space for the spare tyre in the gen2 (which occupied by the spare tyre in gen 3)

6) Better clearance... and the matter of fact, one of our friend who used to own a Rav4... who goes to the beach with it on regular basis (surfer)... which got a sponsor price for the CRV... and on the 1st run he stuck in the sand and need to be towed out and he told us that the lower ground clearance isn't doing he any good.

But I have test drive both and I do agree that the gen3 is a much more beautiful car, much..much better handling (more car like) and more power on tap! But it just not the one for our need. But the Gen2 meets our need almost perfectly :)

skyout

06-12-2007, 10:42 PM

Congrats on the new V and the bundle of joy on the way!!!
Post some pics of your V out in the Australian countryside for us sometime.

osman

06-14-2007, 08:53 PM

Personally, I think the new CRV will start looking better and better every day... it just kind of grows on you. I remember hating it when it was released back in October '06 but I traded my 2nd gen in back in May. From the side, the new V has a hint of infiniti FX35 :-))) I call it the poor man's infiniti :-)

Racoon

06-15-2007, 07:01 AM

Personally, I think the new CRV will start looking better and better every day... it just kind of grows on you. I remember hating it when it was released back in October '06 but I traded my 2nd gen in back in May.
It may start looking better to you, but the more I see the 2007 CR-Vs on the road and around town, the more time I spend thinking of ways to make my 1st Gen CR-V last even longer than it already has.

JM2C

Crinale

06-22-2007, 08:22 PM

It may start looking better to you, but the more I see the 2007 CR-Vs on the road and around town, the more time I spend thinking of ways to make my 1st Gen CR-V last even longer than it already has.

JM2C

:lol: :lol: :lol: i completely agree... altho, if the rumors of the Crossroad replacing the Element are true, then we gen1 owners may have a place to go ^_^

arowens54

06-28-2007, 08:48 AM

Respectfully, I never called the Gen 3 CRV ugly. I said there were too many design changes from Gen 2 to Gen 3 that I didn't like, and while I did call the new front end 'wacked out'.....that's obviously a personal opinion.

You know....many of us that purchased Gen 2 CRV's sifted through post after post on this same forum, from Gen 1 owners who greatly disliked the styling in the Generation 2. It certainly never bothered me, what other folks thought about Gen 2 CRV's. I was happy with mine, and that was all that mattered.

This part of the forum is: Help me Decide on a 2007 CRV. I've read numerous threads in this part of the forum, because I'll be up for a new vehicle sometime soon. Because my 04 V has been such a great vehicle, and because it's my third new Honda.....the 07 CRV is a natural to at least consider.

As part of that consideration process....I read the threads on this forum from current owners of 2007 V's.

After considering the prospect of purchasing a 07 V, I won't be buying one....for the reasons that I mentioned. My reasons for not buying one, shouldn't in my opinion affect you....if you bought one and you're happy.

However, you should understand ( in my opinion ) that many Honda CRV owners are disappointed in the new direction the V has gone in terms of styling and utility. That's simply a fact of life, and pruning the discussion to take away negative reactions to the 2007 CRV doesn't change that.
I agree with Utah. His discussion is very appropriate to this thread. What I don't understand is how, for a post for Hondas and CRVs specifically, I keep seeing pictures of Corvettes, Beemers, etc. That is too frustrating. Also, there are some on here that can get downright rude to people who are new and venturing in for the first time. One had to do with a newcomer talking about his 05 CRV. Why was he slammed? People talk about all the generations of CRVs on this post. I have really learned alot about the vehicle I'm about to purchase, but I doubt I'll continue reviewing these posts.

kurv

06-28-2007, 10:09 AM

Although I agree that this is the best choice of available threads to post 'I don't like the '07' comments, I maintain that opining that you don't like the way it looks serves no purpose on the '07 forum. If you don't like the looks, you wouldn't consider the purchase in the first place. This thread (and the whole '07 forum) assumes the first test (I like the looks or I don't) has been passed before coming here to dig deeper.

Utah, here are the highlights of your post:

"can't understand what Honda was thinking..." about specifically what?

"a vehicle that I just can't warm up to..." other than looks, why not?

"too many changes with the Gen-3 that I don't like..." again, what specifics?

"a completely wacked out front-end..." looks again, I assume?

"I'm not the only Gen-2 V-owner that has these opinions. I know quite a few that are coming due for new vehicles, and not one of us is considering a Gen-3.

I dislike this vehicle so much, that I'll be forced to not purchase a Honda this time around..."

Your only comments not strictly related to looks are the mention of lower ground clearance (.8" I believe) and a space saver spare. More comments on engineering differences could have actually been helpful to someone considering the '07. Other than these two points, your specific comments are only about looks, and everyone has eyes and their own opinion. You might as well complain about an interior color scheme. My wife and I don't like the ivory interior, but what's the point of commenting about it? It's just personal taste. Now, offering just three choices of interior color is a complaint I can identify with, but whether that's a downgrade with the '07 is unknown to me.

Your post mostly comes across as an angry diatribe at Honda. You're unhappy that you can't buy a new V because you don't like the way it looks. I understand that. In your place I'd be unhappy too. But it wouldn't occur to me to come here to express my "dislike" unless I had more specifics than 'don't like the looks, lower ground clearance and a space saver'. A negative post just on the lowering and spare tire would have been OK as far as I'm conerned, but the gist of your post was obviously a rant about the exterior design, and us '07 fans get nothing from that except that you don't like our taste. Not very helpful on a "Help me decide" thread.

sleeksilver

06-28-2007, 04:41 PM

I agree with Utah. His discussion is very appropriate to this thread. What I don't understand is how, for a post for Hondas and CRVs specifically, I keep seeing pictures of Corvettes, Beemers, etc. That is too frustrating. Also, there are some on here that can get downright rude to people who are new and venturing in for the first time. One had to do with a newcomer talking about his 05 CRV. Why was he slammed? People talk about all the generations of CRVs on this post. I have really learned alot about the vehicle I'm about to purchase, but I doubt I'll continue reviewing these posts.

You see pictures of Corvettes and BMWs because we are free to discuss other makes and models of vehicles on this forum. There are no set rules that we must be all Honda, all the time. I don't understand how you think that is frustrating? It is what makes this place fun, if you don't like it then don't post here, very simple.

I don't know what you are talking about with nOObs getting slammed. If someone comes in here with a negative attitude, or if they ask blatantly obvious questions that can be answered by consulting the OM then of course we get frustrated. Answering the same question hundreds of times gets old, especially when they can just search the forum or read their manual. I do not know what "post" you are talking about where the owner of a 2005 G2 got slammed.

Uncle Smitty

07-15-2007, 12:56 AM

Your post mostly comes across as an angry diatribe at Honda. You're unhappy that you can't buy a new V because you don't like the way it looks. I understand that. In your place I'd be unhappy too. But it wouldn't occur to me to come here to express my "dislike" unless I had more specifics than 'don't like the looks, lower ground clearance and a space saver'. A negative post just on the lowering and spare tire would have been OK as far as I'm conerned, but the gist of your post was obviously a rant about the exterior design, and us '07 fans get nothing from that except that you don't like our taste. Not very helpful on a "Help me decide" thread.

Obviously, the best way for a new buyer to decide which CR-V is right for them would be to test drive all three designs. And by "test drive," I mean take it home, pack it for a trip, and spend the weekend driving the vehicle. My dealer let me do this with the first and second gens (I bought the '03). COMPARE ALL THREE and pick the one you like best. Also, there are many new crossover SUVs to choose from these days so prospective buyers should check out the competition.

I knew I didn't want a gen 3 when I drove it and noticed the door handle and shifter jammed into my respective legs. My kids said the backseat was too tight and the windows didn't roll down, but then they are used to the 2nd gen. I hate the '07's clamshell gate with the fused window and wimpy "shelf." The decision to pass was an easy one for me. When Honda re-did the CR-V I was looking for a V-6, quieter ride, and better roof rack system, not a mock mini-van. I know that many V owners feel the same way.

Sorry if that offends some people, but the forum reads "Help Me Decide," which means more than providing a smile sheet from proud (and defensive) new owners.

kurv

07-17-2007, 10:04 AM

Obviously, the best way for a new buyer to decide which CR-V is right for them would be to test drive all three designs. And by "test drive," I mean take it home, pack it for a trip, and spend the weekend driving the vehicle. My dealer let me do this with the first and second gens (I bought the '03). COMPARE ALL THREE and pick the one you like best. Also, there are many new crossover SUVs to choose from these days so prospective buyers should check out the competition.

I knew I didn't want a gen 3 when I drove it and noticed the door handle and shifter jammed into my respective legs. My kids said the backseat was too tight and the windows didn't roll down, but then they are used to the 2nd gen. I hate the '07's clamshell gate with the fused window and wimpy "shelf." The decision to pass was an easy one for me. When Honda re-did the CR-V I was looking for a V-6, quieter ride, and better roof rack system, not a mock mini-van. I know that many V owners feel the same way.

Sorry if that offends some people, but the forum reads "Help Me Decide," which means more than providing a smile sheet from proud (and defensive) new owners.

Constructive criticism doesn't offend me at all, but saying "Honda flat-out wrecked this vehicle" is just a rant. It's simply not true. The minuses for you are non existent or pluses for others and lots of people who are buying the '07 wouldn't have considered the previous generations.