Honda: CR-V News
08-21-2006, 10:03 AM
#161
Pro
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: San Francisco
Age: 41
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the reason for the controversey is that Hondas are traditionally vanilla and share design lineage with their previous iterations.
This new CR-V, like the new Civic, is dramatically restyed for better or worse.
This new CR-V, like the new Civic, is dramatically restyed for better or worse.
08-21-2006, 11:16 AM
#163
The sizzle in the Steak
Originally Posted by charliemike
I really like it. I was very surprised.
V6 in this one?
V6 in this one?
V6 ...this is Honda...not Toyota. (Rav4)I think it is an improvement over the previous gen, but it's no looker.
Interior is nice, but exterior is not the greatest...then again I never cared for the previous gen exterior design either.
08-21-2006, 11:19 AM
#164
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by Infamous425
its def. a huge improvement but the issue is that the front end design waay out of left field
08-21-2006, 12:08 PM
#167
Too bad the US version won't look as good without the projector headlamps, side mirror indicators and possibly even the leather interior.
08-21-2006, 12:46 PM
#168
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by phile
Too bad the US version won't look as good without the projector headlamps, side mirror indicators and possibly even the leather interior.
I know it would lower EPA numbers and infringe on the Pilot as their pricing would be so close, but I wonder if lack of a V6 option will come back to bite Honda in the butt?
08-21-2006, 01:18 PM
#169
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by JeffS
We get leather, but unfortunately not the other two.
I know it would lower EPA numbers and infringe on the Pilot as their pricing would be so close, but I wonder if lack of a V6 option will come back to bite Honda in the butt?
I know it would lower EPA numbers and infringe on the Pilot as their pricing would be so close, but I wonder if lack of a V6 option will come back to bite Honda in the butt?
Lack of a V8 has not hurt Acura.
08-21-2006, 10:53 PM
#172
Originally Posted by JeffS
We get leather, but unfortunately not the other two.
I know it would lower EPA numbers and infringe on the Pilot as their pricing would be so close, but I wonder if lack of a V6 option will come back to bite Honda in the butt?
I know it would lower EPA numbers and infringe on the Pilot as their pricing would be so close, but I wonder if lack of a V6 option will come back to bite Honda in the butt?
08-21-2006, 11:11 PM
#173
Jeez, the Euro version looks so much better than what we're going to get. The un-chromed lower grille makes it blend in with the rest of the car, whereas the ones being photographed running around in the US has the chrome on it, which makes it stand out even more 
08-22-2006, 07:15 AM
#174
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by phile
Probably among car chatters like us, but to the mass audience, I don't think it would. The V6 RAV4 is really in another price category. However, the 3rd row available on the RAV4 might make a difference, no matter how useless it is. When you're in a bind, a 3rd row is a 3rd row.
What's the expected price for this thing? Highest would have to be mid-$20k.
So for an additional $10k, you get an RDX. Does the RDX equipment plus better looks equal $10k?
08-22-2006, 01:18 PM
#176
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
disagree...when you are REALLY in a bind, the truck is a a 3rd row.
What's the expected price for this thing? Highest would have to be mid-$20k.
So for an additional $10k, you get an RDX. Does the RDX equipment plus better looks equal $10k?
What's the expected price for this thing? Highest would have to be mid-$20k.
So for an additional $10k, you get an RDX. Does the RDX equipment plus better looks equal $10k?
08-22-2006, 02:35 PM
#178
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by phile
Wha...? I don't even know what point you're trying to make in response to my post.
I noticed I spelled trunk as "truck" now.
08-22-2006, 04:40 PM
#180
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
My point is i'd rather have the storage space than a 3rd row of seats...and in a REAL bind, the trunk/storage space/whatever you call it serves as seats.
I noticed I spelled trunk as "truck" now.
I noticed I spelled trunk as "truck" now.
As for the RAV4's 3rd row, it folds flat so you have your storage space It's not like the CR-V had a deep well because it lacked a 3rd row - that was occupied by the picnic table. Now that the picnic table is gone, that space is occupied by the spare tire, which no longer hangs from the rear. So the RAV4 with a 3rd row gives you a rear seat as well as a storage compartment. I recognize that the 3rd row is hardly useful, but like I said, when you're in a bind it's helpful. I see you seem to feel that the space back there, even without a seat, can serve as seats. I think most sensible people would opt to just drive in two cars instead.
08-22-2006, 04:44 PM
#181
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by phile
I see you seem to feel that the space back there, even without a seat, can serve as seats. I think most sensible people would opt to just drive in two cars instead.
08-22-2006, 04:45 PM
#182
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by phile
It wasn't the trunk (I knew you misspelled that) I was questioning, it was what you wrote about the RDX...I don't understand the point you were making there.
what i wrote about the RDX should've been a separate post since it wans't in response to yours, but i was feeling really lazy right at that minute.
08-22-2006, 04:47 PM
#183
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
Yeah, but sensible people who can opt to drive two cars would not be defined as being in a "bind" now would they?
08-22-2006, 06:07 PM
#184
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by phile
Most sensible people would opt for a 3rd row vehicle, which has been my initial point. You're just pulling the argument into a different direction.
So you're saying that sensible people would only buy a vehicle with a 3rd row seat, and anyone who buys a vehicle without a 3rd row seat is not sensible?
sensible people who expect to need a 3rd row seat would opt for a vehicle with a 3rd row seat.
sensible people who do not expect to need a 3rd row seat would opt for a vehilcle without a 3rd row seat. There chances of being in a bind may be more likely because they have fewer seats, but being in a "bind" is not something that is expected, whether by people with or without 3rd row seats. And if there are no 3rd row seats and someone is in a "bind", even sensible people could use the trunk area as a seat.
but i think there are as many people who would expect to need a 3rd row as people who don't expect to use a 3rd row, so I don't think it's that big of a deal.
Last edited by mrdeeno; 08-22-2006 at 06:12 PM.
08-22-2006, 07:20 PM
#185
Let's just get back to the CR-V. You clearly want something to debate, but I don't. I already stated that in a bind, the 3rd row is helpful. However you (mis)interpret that is up to you.
08-23-2006, 07:18 PM
#189
I kAnt Spel guD
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 1,319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by deandorsey
i really dont see the problem... i like it... its a huge improvement over past crvs' ... whats the issue?
08-23-2006, 09:11 PM
#190
Originally Posted by MrChad
Ditto, I love the headlights.
I haven't done a side by side analysis but I think they look better than the RDX's.
08-24-2006, 07:10 PM
#192
I kAnt Spel guD
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 1,319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by phile
We're not getting them. I haven't done a side by side analysis but I think they look better than the RDX's.
I haven't done a side by side analysis but I think they look better than the RDX's.
08-24-2006, 11:04 PM
#193
Originally Posted by MrChad
What? The headlights have changed since the photos?
Compare:
08-29-2006, 10:16 PM
#196
http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...onda-cr-v.html
Whole lotta pics in the slideshow. Be warned, you'll get so sick of looking at the CR-V...there must've been 20 pics of each CR-V in the same pose it was ridiculous.
Whole lotta pics in the slideshow. Be warned, you'll get so sick of looking at the CR-V...there must've been 20 pics of each CR-V in the same pose it was ridiculous.
08-29-2006, 11:40 PM
#197
hail to the victors
i can't believe some of you actually like this. they should've made something civic-like or something similar to rdx.
this looks like a bad kia design from 5 years ago.
this looks like a bad kia design from 5 years ago.
08-30-2006, 07:37 AM
#198
Instructor
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chungkopi
i can't believe some of you actually like this. they should've made something civic-like or something similar to rdx.
this looks like a bad kia design from 5 years ago.
this looks like a bad kia design from 5 years ago.
08-30-2006, 06:55 PM
#200
Safety Car
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by phile
http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...onda-cr-v.html
Whole lotta pics in the slideshow. Be warned, you'll get so sick of looking at the CR-V...there must've been 20 pics of each CR-V in the same pose it was ridiculous.
Whole lotta pics in the slideshow. Be warned, you'll get so sick of looking at the CR-V...there must've been 20 pics of each CR-V in the same pose it was ridiculous.