or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Honda CRV, good bad or ugly?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Honda CRV, good bad or ugly?

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
I'm thinking of buying a 2000 CRV (the old body style)Seems ok if a little under powered.Anybody out there have one?
I tried a RAV 4 but the interior was too small for my needs.
post #2 of 16
On the down side all the older SUVs have bad crash marks. I don't know what your needs are, but apart from size the RAV4 is better. The Honda is not a real 4X4. It has a system that senses loss of grip and transfers power. This doesn't work well under a lot of wheight or at high temperatures. It has no low gear and no real differential lock. It might be better than a regular sw on slippery roads but i am not sure that the raised body doesn't offset the gains from the transmision system. Get a Subaru Outback instead. Better in every way but looks cheap, big deal.
post #3 of 16
I own a Honda CRV 2000, which I purchased new and have had great go-anywhere results in all of northern New Hampshire. I have had no problems in any amount of snow, if that's your real focus. I also travel 90 miles a day to work & back over a back country two lane road, that is likened to a road race course.

In fact this morning I traveled on extremely icy roads passing a variety of cars & suv's on my way. One key here in New Hampshire however, is that I run Nokia snows for extra traction. Never been stuck and I live on a 10% grade hill. My CRV just turned 63,000 miles and I plan to purchase another.

One issue is correct. It is clearly under-powered and you need to run it at high RPMS to get it to kick in to a real passing mode.

Just my personal opinion, but it has been the best 4-wheel drive I have had, in over 30 years. I don't haul anything though.
Good luck.
: [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img] whtmt [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img] :
post #4 of 16
I have owned a CRV since 2000. I have not driven or ridden
a RAV4, so I cannot really compare the two. However, as far
as CRV's are concerned, my considerations are:

1. Both cars are kind of ugly. If I had the money I'd rather
own a Cadillac Escalade, but the finances are what they are
and so let's get past the look of both RAV4 and CRV. Plus,
I guess it is a personal thing.

2. CRV is reliable. I take good care of it and I get regularly
22-23 miles/gallon during any season and driving all sorts of
roads. If you don't misuse it, you are likely not to have
to spend a lot of money on it to keep it up and running.
Statistically it is very good in that sense.

3. It is true, it could use a few more horsepowers. The newer
version has about 15-20 horsepowers more than the original
version and that could address the need myself and others

4. The fact that it is not really a 4 wheel drive all the
time may actually work to your advantage as in many situations
you do not need that feature and save on fuel.

5. I live in Minnesota where snow, ice and cold are common
during the Winter season and sometimes even late Falls and
early Springs. The car on ice is really amazing and on snow
it proved much better than I would have expected. Get a
good set of tires (Michelin, for example) and you will do
even better.

6. It has a lot of room in the back and I can easily fit my
skis (184cm) and all the other equipment.

7. Up to 90 miles/hour the car is very nice to drive, over
90 miles/hour it is definitely less pleasant . You would
not feel that the car is performing bad, but the vibrations
and the noise inside are more than one would like to bear.
However, technically speaking, that's a dangerous speed to
be driving at, if you get pulled over by the police.

8. I often rent SUV's when I travel far away for skiing.
I have driven Ford, Suzuki, Toyota, GMC in the mid-size
and full-size versions. I can honestly say, that I can sense
those cars have more power than the small CRV, but many times
that's about it. A sure waist of horsepowers. And some do not
even really have that much more space (the mid-size not the
full-size ones, of course). But they "drink" a lot of fuel,
oh yes they do...

Hope it helps,

post #5 of 16
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the input. I drove it and found that it could use about 50 more hp but I'm willing to over look that for the economy mpg.I could not justify any thing that gets less than 23mpg overall.
post #6 of 16
I like my Subaru Forester. I bought it in 2000, choosing it over the CRV and RAV4. So far, my favorite vehicle of all time. I live in northern Vermont, haul me and 2-3 13-year-olds to the ski area every weekend, with gear, no problems, enough room, and I have it tricked out with a Yakima rack system for skis/boards/canoe/kayaks. I get enough power from the 4 cyl 250 boxer engine. The engine design results in a lower center of gravity, so rollover is less likely than with some other SUVs.
post #7 of 16
Do you get a different CRV in the USA? the european one gets 35mpg....but then again it is a manual (stick shift)....I don't know why anyone would bother with one, there a much better nicer vehicles on the market.....here for the same money you can get a Mitsubshi (sp) Pajero re badged as a hyundai Galloper for less with a large turbo disel....in the us just get a secvcond hand Chevy...or jeep Cherokee..if you are worried about mpg run on LPG (thin you call it propane)
post #8 of 16
I'm not sure why anyone would get a softroader like the RAV4 or CRV. If you are goint to do some serious mud bashing off road get a real 4wd like a Landrover. If the worst you will drive is a rough dirt road go for a Subaru. The ski field roads in NZ are all steep, winding, rough and icy and Subarus outnumber all SUVs combined by about 5/1. I have had 5 people with all ski gear for a week loaded into my Legacy (2 litre) and it never had any difficulty. And having a standard car body you can corner better and your fuel economy is only just above an ordinary car.

[ November 10, 2002, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: kiwiski ]
post #9 of 16
Kiwi, I had a Subi at Hutt one week, first time I'd driven one. Absolutely gutless and woeful fuel economy. Ok, like so many ex Jap cars it was an auto, but used almost a full tank of fuel from Christchurch to Hutt and return, with a few trips up the mountain. It was a shame as I’ve always liked these cars, but it really put me off them.

To the Americans here, remember “bigger must be better”; buy a Hummer. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
post #10 of 16
Have an 01 CRV. Anyone who tells you they bought it cause it has balls is lying. However, Since I bought it for the possibility that I might run int some rough road conditions, so what. When evaluating it compared to say a RAV4 (at least the older one) and the Subaru, there were a couple of factors: The RAV 4 was REALLY ugly, and the CRV is, after all, a Honda. That means a lot to me, since Hondas do not die.

Also, there is great interior space. More headroom and space than a Blazer. I took three of my <big ugly> friends and our gear on a three day trip to Jay, Stowe, and Killington. No complaints about being in the back seat by anyone. If I had to race the baja or climb Kilimanjaro, I think I'd be screwed. But then again, since all of the Rovers break down about as much as Jags do, I figure at least I saved a good 20 K.
post #11 of 16
Rover is a good name for them(or maybe Spot or Bowser?)
post #12 of 16
Hei Tom@cham, are you sure that the CRV in Europe can
do 35 mpg? It seems weird to me. Sure, manual shift can
save you a few miles per tank, but from 22-23 to 35 miles
per gallon, there is quite a difference. Isn't it possible
that you are giving us kilometers per gallon? In fact,
22 mpg is approximately 35 km x gallon.
It sounds too good to be true, and I do not think it is
possible to water down the engine of this car that much


post #13 of 16
Originally posted by MauSki:
Hei Tom@cham, ....Isn't it possible
that you are giving us kilometers per gallon? In fact,
22 mpg is approximately 35 km x gallon....

A gallon is not a gallon... : Imperial gallons are a significantly higher volume than American gallons. Less comfusing would be the amount of kilometers per liter.
post #14 of 16
I recently purchased a 2002 Subaru Legacy Outback. Considered a CRV. Biggest defect (for my needs) on the CRV is the Civic platform gives it a very low tow rating. I think the old body style is like 750 lbs, and the new one is 1000. At least the Outback gives you 2000 lbs of legitimate tow capacity (In aus/nz it is rated for 3000 lbs with air rear suspension. If you have enough breaddough and can handle an auto (I didn't and can't) the H-6 is available.

The old CRV is a bit small, tallish looking and underpowered. The newer one is a better choice. I still did not like the swinging rear door. Impossible to open if towing something.

As far as AWD systems go, my Suby has only seen lots of mud and grub so far on farms while taking me pheasant hunting, and with the 5 speed, limited slip rear diff, it is very capable, and so far unstoppable, even up greasy hills. I'm still shopping up snow tires and planning my winter travels.

My only complaint - lack of transfer case. The CRV, Escape, RAV4, all share the same deficit.

With 8000 miles on my Outback now I have been averaging about 23 in town, and 27 on the highway. No problems at all.

Get what you like best. For my money, I'd be shopping a 2000 Outback up rather than a 2000 CRV. In the end, both reliable and solid choices depending on your needs.

post #15 of 16
Another vote for the Subie. We have put about 16k miles on our '01 Outback Wagon. Did a 1600 mile road trip from our place in Washington up through Northern Idaho (Schweitzer), Montana (Big Mountain) and BC (Fernie, Red & Whitewater) last winter. Snow and freezing rain for a good part of the trip. It is probably the best vehicle I have ever owned. Very competent and a pleasure to drive.

We used to tow a boat and tow vehicles included a K5 Blazer, Jeep Cherokee (the 'boxy one, under rated IMHO) and a 99 Explorer. The Explorer was the most civilized of the lot but went back to the dealer 7 times in the first year. I dumped it when Subaru was doing a 0% deal.

Only thing I don't like - taking a small vehicle to the hardware store but that's what our Tacoma is for ...

We live across the river from Hood River, Oregon and Mt Adams and Hood are our playgrounds. From observation the Outback seems to be the most popular car on our portion of the planet. CRV's and RAV 4's don't show up often. Probably because they don't offer the size advantage (hardware run) of the larger trucks. Hope that helps
post #16 of 16
I have a new Royal Blue 2002 Honda CRV. It has changed since the 2000 model. This is my first winter with it. I can't wait. At least it is better than the old Honda Civic I had "lol".

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Honda CRV, good bad or ugly?