Topic: First Drive: 2015 Honda CR-V

[sacrat]

Most (if not all) manufacturers list a tolerance for oil consumption in the operators manual.  I would guess that 1L every 5k kms would be within Subaru's tolerance.

My 1985 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe (2.3T) used a litre of oil every 800 km(!). Ford insisted this was "normal" for this engine

[johngenx]

A liter per 5000km is nothing to be concerned about. A liter per 1000km is worrisome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mixmanmash]

Most (if not all) manufacturers list a tolerance for oil consumption in the operators manual.  I would guess that 1L every 5k kms would be within Subaru's tolerance.

My 1985 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe (2.3T) used a litre of oil every 800 km(!). Ford insisted this was "normal" for this engine

That's because it was a 2 stroke. 

[Oldsguy]

NoTo,  I guess that you are among the lucky Subaru drivers who have no problem! Good for you!

He's what known as a "piston slappie" when it comes to Subarus... 

[Noto]

He's what known as a "piston slappie" when it comes to Subarus...

Subaru can do no wrong.  All hail King Subaru.

I have no idea what your comment is referring to, Olds

[Noto]

Find it odd that Honda with the new 2015 changes incurred would not address a weak point of the CRV the minimal AWD system and add something like their SH-AWD system to a revised model.

I don't find it odd.  It's not a 'minimal' AWD system, it's just geared towards keeping the car straight and maybe a little nudge to get the car going from a stop.  The SH-AWD system is expensive, complex, and uses a ton more fuel (relatively speaking) and that's why it was removed from the Acura RDX in the last redesign in favour of a more simple AWD system.  The CRV is about economy in every sense of the word.  It will never get SH-AWD.

[Fobroader]

Find it odd that Honda with the new 2015 changes incurred would not address a weak point of the CRV the minimal AWD system and add something like their SH-AWD system to a revised model.

I don't find it odd.  It's not a 'minimal' AWD system, it's just geared towards keeping the car straight and maybe a little nudge to get the car going from a stop.  The SH-AWD system is expensive, complex, and uses a ton more fuel (relatively speaking) and that's why it was removed from the Acura RDX in the last redesign in favour of a more simple AWD system.  The CRV is about economy in every sense of the word.  It will never get SH-AWD.

Its a craptastic system, even by slip and grip standards.....Subaru has awesome awd and its not like the Forester uses twice the fuel of the CR-V. Maybe a MH-AWD, Mediocre Handling-AWD??

[redman]

Find it odd that Honda with the new 2015 changes incurred would not address a weak point of the CRV the minimal AWD system and add something like their SH-AWD system to a revised model.

I don't find it odd.  It's not a 'minimal' AWD system, it's just geared towards keeping the car straight and maybe a little nudge to get the car going from a stop.  The SH-AWD system is expensive, complex, and uses a ton more fuel (relatively speaking) and that's why it was removed from the Acura RDX in the last redesign in favour of a more simple AWD system.  The CRV is about economy in every sense of the word.  It will never get SH-AWD.

Honda is lagging on this product line. Maybe 4WD (VTM-4) or similar. The SH-AWD is not exactly a new system announced in 04 and showed on the 2005 model year Acura RL and is due for a trickle down. SH-AWD may use marginally more fuel but I think it's about maximizing cost for Honda rather than fuel economy. Either way it's appears to be such an inferior product vs symmetrical AWD that it's a deal breaker for me a current Subaru driver.

[Noto]

Maybe a MH-AWD, Mediocre Handling-AWD??

[mixmanmash]

Maybe a MH-AWD, Mediocre Handling-AWD??

My vote goes for WH-AWD?

What's Handling All Wheel Drive?

[Benhaze]

Find it odd that Honda with the new 2015 changes incurred would not address a weak point of the CRV the minimal AWD system and add something like their SH-AWD system to a revised model.

I don't find it odd.  It's not a 'minimal' AWD system, it's just geared towards keeping the car straight and maybe a little nudge to get the car going from a stop.  The SH-AWD system is expensive, complex, and uses a ton more fuel (relatively speaking) and that's why it was removed from the Acura RDX in the last redesign in favour of a more simple AWD system.  The CRV is about economy in every sense of the word.  It will never get SH-AWD.

Its a craptastic system, even by slip and grip standards.....Subaru has awesome awd and its not like the Forester uses twice the fuel of the CR-V. Maybe a MH-AWD, Mediocre Handling-AWD??

Indeed LOL. That crappy AWD and awful roadnoise have written off the CRV from any wish list. I wonder if Honda ever improved it since the very 1st generation. I had a bit of experience with that one and boy it was bad. But Honda was a Pioneer back then with the CRV so it was more acceptable.

Honda should buy the Magna AWD system instead of using their subpar system; Kia does and their system is way superior to Honda's.

[Noto]

Again, CRV = 'runabout' vehicle.  The intention is to be vanilla, check all boxes (not to be perfect, but at least fit all categories), and to be cheap to buy/operate.

Cheapest AWD system, least invasive, and uses as little gas as possible.  Honda will never switch the AWD system.  Toyota did in the Rav4 and nobody cared.

[Fobroader]

Again, CRV = 'runabout' vehicle.  The intention is to be vanilla, check all boxes (not to be perfect, but at least fit all categories), and to be cheap to buy/operate.

Cheapest AWD system, least invasive, and uses as little gas as possible.  Honda will never switch the AWD system.  Toyota did in the Rav4 and nobody cared.

If they dont give it proper awd, why not put in a lock button so you can at least send power to all 4 wheels to get out of an icy situation?!?!?!? But I digress, this is not a vehicle I would ever consider and enough people are buying it that what would be Hondas incentive to make it better.

[Noto]

enough people are buying it that what would be Hondas incentive to make it better.

See, Toyota listened to all the badgering about how boring their vehicles are.  I think they made a huge mistake in their latest redesigns (except for the Corolla).  I think the Camry will alienate all those looking for the mundane, A to B commuter.  I think the Rav4 has alienate a lot of folks with its harsh/firm suspension.

It worked out very well for the Sienna, I think, and the Corolla is fancy with those LED daytime running lights, but complaints made by auto journalists mean very little when sales are proving them wrong.

[EV-Light]

enough people are buying it that what would be Hondas incentive to make it better.

See, Toyota listened to all the badgering about how boring their vehicles are.  I think they made a huge mistake in their latest redesigns (except for the Corolla).  I think the Camry will alienate all those looking for the mundane, A to B commuter.  I think the Rav4 has alienate a lot of folks with its harsh/firm suspension.

It worked out very well for the Sienna, I think, and the Corolla is fancy with those LED daytime running lights, but complaints made by auto journalists mean very little when sales are proving them wrong.

if the RAV4 did alienate customers, why has Toyota been able to pull a huge sales increase? 26% in the US and 9% in Canada...making it the 3rd best selling CUV in the US and 2nd best selling in Canada.....interesting huh?

[Noto]

...because, like my ex-gf's mother, "I had a camry, so I went out and bought another one.  I hate it, but now I'm stuck with it.

My point is more so that auto journalists said that the Rav4 was boring, so Toyota went overkill and made the monstrosity that is the new Rav4.  Now the journos say "too stiff, ugly, etc"

[EV-Light]

...because, like my ex-gf's mother, "I had a camry, so I went out and bought another one.  I hate it, but now I'm stuck with it.

My point is more so that auto journalists said that the Rav4 was boring, so Toyota went overkill and made the monstrosity that is the new Rav4.  Now the journos say "too stiff, ugly, etc"

...and they sold 26% more, obviously hard to say these are repeat customers only however if you compare the increased sales and previous sales numbers I'd assume Toyota brought some new customers for sure.

[Noto]

...because, like my ex-gf's mother, "I had a camry, so I went out and bought another one.  I hate it, but now I'm stuck with it.

My point is more so that auto journalists said that the Rav4 was boring, so Toyota went overkill and made the monstrosity that is the new Rav4.  Now the journos say "too stiff, ugly, etc"

...and they sold 26% more, obviously hard to say these are repeat customers only however if you compare the increased sales and previous sales numbers I'd assume Toyota brought some new customers for sure.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but statistics are not always representative.

Did you consider what 26% is more than?  More than the previous period of what?  When people knew a new model was coming out and they held off?  At the end of a long life cycle when the previous Rav was not competitive?  When dealer stock was likely low?

I've also never seen Rav4s on rental fleet lots in the past, but now I see them at the Hertz near my house, in the Avis lot near my gym, and on the road with "Discount" stickers on the rear fender.  Sale numbers or percentages are really, really not determinative.  And yes, many will likely be the Toyota faithful who will buy the car even if it's clearly a Fiat 500 with a Toyota badge on it.