CTC Review: 2007 Honda CR-V EX

[RatherRide]

I've owned 2 of the last generation ('02-'06) CRV, several Accords as well as an '06 Civic so pretty familiar with Hondas.  Was invited to drive the new CRV about a month ago.  Definetly feels up market from last gen, quiter, lower and more car like.  I like most of the changes although I appear to be the only person who liked the dash gear selector and parking brake in the last version.  One caveat is the power.  It always felt like the weak link in an otherwise excellent vehicle - and it still does on the '07, unfortunately.  Honda has historically offered only enough power and other than V6 Accords, little more.  The CRV continues this pattern and I expect it will suffer in the marketplace as a result, especially with V6 RAVs, Suzukis and Hyundais in the same class for the same (or less) $.  Lack of a V6 would probably stop me from buying the new CRV along with the fact that it doesn't appear to get any better fuel economy than it's competition.  The one I drove never rose above 10L/100 km on the dash readout and that's not good enuf.  Regards.

[G0dspd]

I thought it was Civic based too, so I looked it up:

"The Honda CR-V is a compact SUV manufactured by Honda. It was loosely derived from the Honda Civic platform to satisfy a public demand for an SUV from Honda, and in response to Toyota's Rav4."

I guess the CR-V chassis is loosely derived from the Civic (the new one I guess) like the Ridgeline is derived from the Odyssey.  They take a chassis and add a little or take a little and voila!

There's quite a few 2007 CR-Vs and RDXs running around in Ottawa.  The CR-V is not a good looking cute-ute CUV/Tall wagon ... the previous generation was a better looking cute-ute.  The RDX is better looking but it as the same identity problems ... and the price. 

[DVLWHL]

I am just wondering why Honda won't tune the 2.4L engine int he CRV to produce 205HP and 164lb-ft as in the Acura TSX. This would appeal to buyers who think the current offering to underpowered yet would not intrude in the power territory of the Acura RDX.

[serenaray]

One of the departures I like from previous generations of CRV's is the rear hatch opening up and not out like a door. Of course, the change took away the full size spare hanging on the back door. I'm sure most of the RAV4 fans care more about HP and 0-60 than how you open up the back. Personally, I don't think the swing-out door opens the right way for us who drive on the right and pull over to the right when loading/unloading at BestBuy.

[bmorton]

I have a new RAV4 V6. Yes, I do care more about hp and 0-60 than I do about how the back opens, but that's because I spend more time behind the wheel than I do loading or unloading from the back door. Not to say that I don't think the swing-up hatch is a better overall way to do it - I'd prefer that myself and I think the CR-V wins in that area.

Overall, however, the swinging back door was a pretty minor tick in the negative column, not enough on its own to put me off the entire vehicle, which I like quite a bit and would still choose today. But I also wouldn't hesitate to recommend the new CR-V - I think the two have diverged in terms of look and feel now to the point where someone test-driving both would come away with a clear favourite.

[Blueprint]

Blueprint, you are of course part of the problem with there not being a manual transmission CRV... you own two out of two automatic vehicles.  Did you complain to the mfrs when your cars were not available with a manual?    Nothing personal!!!    Its the 89% will only buy automatics and 11% who might buy a manual isn't enough.

BTW selling a manual is not a zero cost thing.  It would require  a 2nd emission certification as well as spare parts and dealer traqining

I regularly complain on www.mpvclub.com about Mazda not bringing the Euro config of the MPV here : 2.3 l four + 5-speed stick (in fact, the automatic is not even available over there).  That's why the MPV has a proper handbrake : the van was engineered for a manual tranny.

The Odyssey is another story...Honda does have a 6-speed manual for the V-6, but untill Chip Foose tows away my van, I don't think we'll ever see a "midivan" with a stick 

Finding a car with a stick and the capability to install 3 child seats ain't easy (and the Mazda 5 won't take a stroller with the 3rd row up), hence the 2 slushboxed minivans (but they are just about the most fun-to-drive ones on the market, and the pee-vee is a looker in Titanium with GFX  )

Regarding the foot-operated parking brake of the CR-V, well my Ody has one too, and it doesn't stop me from doing 180's in winter 

[Blueprint]

Honda will be putting a modern diesel in the CR-V come '08 or '09, confirmed, but I don't think they'll bother with the V-6.  A torquey CDI might help a loaded CR-V to scoot around.

Saw another one this morning, and I have to admit parts of the styling do work.  The side sculpting, below the greenhouse, along with wheel proportions, give it an expensive, X-5ish presence.  I could live with the rear windows, but that beak...

[DoubleClutch]

I too had considered the CR-V just because it's a honda. But it's just too underpowered when loaded up with 4 people. For me, the only advantages the CR-V had over the RAV4 was the lift-up tailgate and slightly better fuel economy. In the RAV4 that V6 engine more than makes up for it's deficiencies. Like bmorton said, you spend way more time behind the wheel than loading/unloading stuff from the back.

[Arthur Dent]

Finding a car with a stick and the capability to install 3 child seats ain't easy (and the Mazda 5 won't take a stroller with the 3rd row up), hence the 2 slushboxed minivans (but they are just about the most fun-to-drive ones on the market, and the pee-vee is a looker in Titanium with GFX  )

My old Neon could take three child seats in the back ...

[safristi]

CRUELTY ta KIDS.................being seen in a NEON...ye've warped 'em fer life.....

[serenaray]

Why do people compare the CRV to the RAV4 V6? Put the 4cyl Limited against the CRV, and I found that the CRV had the edge in overall driving feel and performance. When it came down to pricing, the V6 was $4500 more over the CRV and I couldn't justify an extra $100/mth for 4yrs.

Truth be told, even if Honda came out with a CRV Type-R with the RDX turbo engine in it, I'm a bigger fan of natural aspiration and would side with the RAV4 V6.

[mike b.]

Butt ugly front end. The front double-grill looks like a double chin.  After owning the first wo CRV models, I'll skip this one and go with the great looking Santa Fe.  The only good thing is the new rear hatch.

[bmorton]

People compare the CR-V against the RAV4 V6 because they are priced in the same neighbourhood. The base V6 is $800 less than the CR-V EX, and the Sport with sunroof is $150 more than the EX-L. For those who are interested in the engine it's a fair comparison.

[jww]

I think Wing called it out perfectly in his closing remarks on today's entry. The CR-V is what it is, and doesn't pretend to be something that it isn't. Honda faithful will keep this new model on the roads a-plenty.

[sirAQUAMAN64]

Been driving around the GTA lots this week and I gotta tell ya, seen dozens of these things already.

May have googlie headlights, black door handles, and in some cases steelies, but people are buying them. The 4-cyl likely works just fine and is a non-issue for urbanites.

[usa1]

I'm really surprised that no ones calls out the emperor new clothes on this one: the new CRV is ugly.   I'll admit styling is subjective, but come on.  That grill is terrible.  It looks like the thing has a cleft lip.  The tumblehome is non-existant, making it look very awkward, and the profile in the back it just plain odd.  The overall styling is very feminine, which Honda admitted to doing, but it's extremely so.  To each their own I guess!

[johngenx]

I think the new CR-V looks much better in-the-tin than in pics, but I still think the front is a little overwrought.  However, I really like the "d-Pillar."  I thought it ugly in the pics, but it really works.

[Careener]

James..Do the seats finally slide back far enough for the long-legged? This was a real issue in the 1st and 2nd gen models.

[Loudpedal]

I think Wing called it out perfectly in his closing remarks on today's entry. The CR-V is what it is, and doesn't pretend to be something that it isn't. Honda faithful will keep this new model on the roads a-plenty.

I consider myself part of the "Honda faithful", but if I needed to replace my wifeys car, I would not be buying a Honda.  I'd be buying a V6 RAV instead.  Thanks for nothing Honda...

You are quite right tough, there will be plenty on the roads, but Toyota will now pick up the buyers that are non-pedestrian with their V6 RAV.

[widefire]

I've test the new CR-V with my dad. He was actually planning on getting one since he was missing his 1999 a lot. He's now driving a 2001 Civic. Let's just say the Civic can't keep up in snow up here hehe.

Well, he was soo sad after the drive that he told the his salesman that he would probably get a Suzuki, Toyota, or the new Mitsu Outlander before buying another CR-V. He's at his 5th Honda right now...

The new CR-V rides well, is well equipped and all, but there's nothing under the hood. There's no kickdown. It takes forever to get from 80 to 120. I even ask my dad to smash it and he said, I'm already full throttle.....

At the price of the fully equipped CR-V they should have put the 2.3L Turbo from the RD-X in it or the V6 of the Accord... I guess Honda will add a bigger engine in 2-3 years like they did with the first gen CR-V when they will see sales going down...

Now my dad can't wait for the Mitsu to get here.