 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / January 2007CR-V question
I've been doing some research on my next auto and narrowed my choices down to the CR-V -vs- Rav 4. Does the CR-V offer an actual car alarm? It was not mentioned anywhere when I did my research. The vehicle I am considering is the 2007 2WD LX (almost fully loaded, except for the moon roof) -vs- the Rav 4 sport edition with the 18 inch wheels and 6 cylinder engine. The CR-V is more affordable. If affordability is a factor, you should check out the RAV 4 with the 4 cyl engine--nothing wrong with the Toyota 4 cyl. The V6 engine will give much superior performance in terms of acceleration, especially when carrying a heavy load(passengers,cargo etc.). I like the appearance of the new CRV better--no external tire carrier for one thing. On the other hand, the RAV 4 has more cargo space than the CRV. Ken > I've been doing some research on my next auto and narrowed my choices down > to the CR-V -vs- Rav 4. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The CR-V is more affordable. On 12/24/06 10:24 PM, in article FnIjh.1932$%M1.1182@trnddc08, "fish" > I've been doing some research on my next auto and narrowed my choices down > to the CR-V -vs- Rav 4. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The CR-V is more affordable. The Honda website lists a "security system" in the specs for the '07 CR-V as standard equipment on the EX & EX-L and unavailable on the LX. I did not find any discussion of what it provides. You will need to go to a dealer and get them to show you what it consists of, and if satisfactory, you probably need to consider upgrading your plans to the EX model. If you are considering the RAV-4 with a V-6 as an alternative, the difference between a CR-V LX and EX pales in comparison & will still be more affordable. I sort-a doubt you will look back at the Honda once you test drive that V-6. E Meyer sez to fish who blubbed... >> I've been doing some research on my next >> auto and narrowed my choices down to the >> CR-V -vs- Rav 4. >> >> Does the CR-V offer an actual car alarm? > The Honda website lists a "security system" in the specs for the '07 CR-V > as > standard equipment on the EX & EX-L and unavailable on the LX. I did not > find any discussion of what it provides. You will need to go to a dealer > and get them to show you what it consists of, and if satisfactory, you > probably need to consider upgrading your plans to the EX model. >> The vehicle I am considering is the 2007 2WD LX >> (almost fully loaded, except for the moon roof) -vs- >> the Rav 4 sport edition with the 18 inch wheels and >> 6 cylinder engine. >> >> The CR-V is more affordable. > If you are considering the RAV-4 with a V-6 as an > alternative, the difference between a CR-V LX and > EX pales in comparison & will still be more affordable. > I sort-a doubt you will look back at the Honda once > you test drive that V-6. Wow, thanks for the advice. I really needed that. I know the Rav-4 offers a security system from the specs, just trying to see what I need to know - like most people, I am looking for a very reliable auto that will provide reliable transportation for a great many years to come. A vehicle that would be a pleasure to drive. When I sampled the stereo system in the CR-V -vs- the Rav-4, it was obvious that the Rav-4 has a much better quality stereo system. Is having the spare tire on the back a hassle or convenience? I mean, if you need to change a flat, with the new CR-V, you would have to empty the cargo area to get to the hidden spare below the board - but on the Rav-4 you don't have to touch your valuables inside just to get to the spare. Cheers!  Signature__________ ===fish=== ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ > I mean, if you need to change a flat, with the new CR-V, you would have to > empty the cargo area to get to the hidden spare below the board - but on the > Rav-4 you don't have to touch your valuables inside just to get to the > spare. True. But the external spares have become a high-theft item. In Buffalo, these are disappearing left and right from all makes of cars... Fairly easy target... On 12/27/06 12:05 AM, in article emt2f6$cog$1@news.datemas.de, "Joe LaVigne" <jlavigne@hits-buffalo.com> wrote: >> I mean, if you need to change a flat, with the new CR-V, you would have to >> empty the cargo area to get to the hidden spare below the board - but on the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Fairly easy target... I have an '06 CR-V with the tire on the back. I haven't noticed any CR-V's or RAV4's driving around here (Dallas) with missing spares. There must be tire shortage in Buffalo? The dealers around here automatically put wheel locks on these things anyway, including one on the spare. Unlike Consumer Reports, who seemed to think anyone buying a CR-V or RAV4 backs into parking places such that the rear door can't be opened, we think the side opening back door was one of the 06's best features. I was disappointed to see it go & glad I got the '06 before it was too late. The inside-stored compact spare is actually a cost/content reduction vs. the outside mounted alloy wheel and real-tire. You are getting less. The only valid complaint I have heard about the tailgate mounted spare is that in a rear end collision it is what will be hit, missing the bumper (assuming there actually is a bumper) and generally results in excessive damage to the back of the car. > On 12/27/06 12:05 AM, in article emt2f6$cog$1@news.datemas.de, "Joe LaVigne" > <jlavigne@hits-buffalo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > there actually is a bumper) and generally results in excessive damage to the > back of the car. My father works at a local college. The number one theft item in the past 2 years has been external spares. And a wheel lock on them is a joke. It slows down a theif, but at 3 AM, without having to do any jacking or hard work, the tire can be pretty easily removed, and sold for $50. For a guy looking for some quick cash, they are a easy target. And who really needs a full-size spare, and easily accessible to boot? How often do you plan on using it? My last flat tire was probably 5 years ago, and due to my own negligence (not having a proper alignment done after a tie-rod end replacement, causing quick, uneven wear). I would prefer a donut hidden in the cargo area, if given a choice... On 12/28/06 12:36 AM, in article emvoln$h2p$5@news.datemas.de, "Joe LaVigne" <jlavigne@hits-buffalo.com> wrote: >> On 12/27/06 12:05 AM, in article emt2f6$cog$1@news.datemas.de, "Joe LaVigne" >> <jlavigne@hits-buffalo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > I would prefer a donut hidden in the cargo area, if given a choice... Where is this college? > On 12/28/06 12:36 AM, in article emvoln$h2p$5@news.datemas.de, "Joe LaVigne" > <jlavigne@hits-buffalo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Where is this college? Buffalo, NY. My friend had her spare tire stolen on her RAV4. I am considering a CRV---and will not look at a RAV4 just for the spare tire reason. Also if you have a regular car you would have to empty the trunk to get to the spare tire as well--right? Unless you expect to change tires once a week(In my 24 years of driving I have never had a flat) I would not use the convienence of a spare tire to justify your purchase. I also think buying a car based solely on a stereo is ridiculous. > When I sampled the stereo system in the CR-V -vs- the Rav-4, it was obvious > that the Rav-4 has a much better quality stereo system. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Cheers! >From: planetx@gmail.com (planetx) >I also think buying a car based solely on a >stereo is ridiculous. >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Same goes for a security system Happy New Years folks!! QUAKEnSHAKE typed: >I also think buying a car based solely on a >stereo is ridiculous. > Same goes for a security system Interesting how you both seem to believe that I would purchase a vehicle based SOLELY on a single item. I do not recall every stating that. I am basing my purchase decision on many factors and am simply pointing out a mere few things on the list that I am using as a measure of which vehicle is better equipped to fit my needs. Thanks for the reply and have a happy and safe 2007!! _________ ===fish=== ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Well then just from reading looks like the Rav4 1.Better stereo 2. better engine v6 3. security system 4. 18"wheels 5. larger cargo area vs CR-V 1.more affordable Might come down to just one item "cost". You want all those other things or save money. What is the price difference anyways? Which has the better ride, lower insurance, better mpg? Ray QUAKEnSHAKE respectfully pointed out: > Well then just from reading looks like the Rav4 > 1.Better stereo [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > CR-V > 1.more affordable There are a few others I plan on visiting the respective dealers for. I am considering vehicles that offer good gas mileage as a first priority, then I take it from there. For example, the Honda Element (22/27) The 2008 Ford Escape (36/31) Toyota Highlander (was considering the Hybrid, but I can get the gas version in the Limited trim for less and the mileage difference isn't that far off. > Might come down to just one item "cost". > You want all those other things or save money. That's where the research comes in. What I can afford to balance will help serve as a general guide. > What is the price difference anyways? It varies depending on many things. However, I am simply setting up which vehicles I feel deserve my invested time to take a closer look at and if satisfied, a test drive. As much as I like the Honda CR-V, there seem to be quite a few negatives with it that tip the scale for me. I mean, the service dept. is a sure sign of what I should expect. For example, I bought my 97' Saturn back in '96, have it serviced only at the dealership with the genuine parts and it has been the most reliable vehicle I have ever owned. I want THAT experience and the service dept. at the Toyota dealership -compared- to the Honda dealership was dramatic - a clear winner by far. However, chosing a vehicle based only on one single item or feature, such as a superior service dept. might be unwise. > Which has the better ride, lower insurance, better mpg? Lower insurance? I didn't realize that chosing a.... ...very interesting and valid point, Ray! The 2008 Saturn Vue is coming spring with a very aggressive price point geared with Hybrid technology in a V4 & two levels of V6 engines - but the reviews I've watched the videos of were not very impressive enough to consider, unless PRICE is the main concern - I want QUALITY, so there must be a balance. Pay a little more for quality? Yes! _________ ===fish=== ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ >QUAKEnSHAKE respectfully pointed out: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >For example, the Honda Element (22/27) >The 2008 Ford Escape (36/31) That must be the hybrid. >Toyota Highlander (was considering the Hybrid, but I can get the gas version >in the Limited trim for less and the mileage difference isn't that far off. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >That's where the research comes in. >What I can afford to balance will help serve as a general guide. You might want to subscribe to ConsumerReports.org where you can get the test results for the '07 CRV and the others you are considering. You can set up a side-by-side comparison, although it doesn't include all of the stats available in the full report. I note that the Forester is significantly narrower than the CRV, RAV and Escape which are nearly identical in size. Highlander is a little bigger. Of these, The Ford definitely lags in reliability, depreciation and owner satisfaction. It also did worse in crash tests, especially if you don't have the optional side air bags (which are standard in the other cars.) The CRV had the best "emergency" handling which I would relate also to "sporty" handling. That would be a big factor for me, but I would prefer a sporty station wagon to any of these hulks. The Ford had the worst braking performance. The Highlander with the V6 was fastest. The Forester and RAV with I4s were a second slower to 60 and the CRV and Escape hybrid were another second behind. The mileage of the Highlander (19 overall) was worst of the bunch reflecting its bigger size and V6 engine. CRV got 21, Forester 22 and RAV 23 and the Escape hybrid got 26. If you get the Highlander with the hybrid, it jumps to 27, and it actually gets faster. Of course the cost soars as well. Substitute the V6 for the hybrid in the Escape and mileage plummets to 17 with little improvement in acceleration. (So much for the theory that hybrids don't do anything.) Lots more info at the site. Not free but pretty cheap, especially when you are shopping for a car. So, Fish, why do you want an SUV anyway? >> What is the price difference anyways? > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >===fish=== >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Gordon McGrew respectfully added... >> I am considering vehicles that offer good gas mileage >> as a first priority, then I take it from there. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That must be the hybrid. Yes and my research is limited until I pick up some magazines. I understand the next Consumer Reports should be due by January 9th (if I am correct). >> Toyota Highlander (was considering the Hybrid, >> but I can get the gas version in the Limited trim >> for less and the mileage difference isn't that far off. I want to further add that any vehicle in the Limited trim will always have more safety, stability, security, bells & whistles than the base. Having said that, until the liquid hydrogen fuel cells start leaping into our production autos, the Hybrids are certainly helpful (but you have to consider the cost, plus Hybrids haven't been around long enough to base any reliability standard that I know of). > You might want to subscribe to ConsumerReports.org where > you can get the test results for the '07 CRV and the others you > are considering. The magazine edition should be coming soon. Last visit to the bookstore revealed in small print, "Display until January 8, 2007". > You can set up a side-by-side comparison... I am doing that now with the Kelly Blue Book website. > I note that the Forester is significantly narrower > than the CRV, RAV and Escape which are nearly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > depreciation and owner satisfaction. It also > did worse in crash tests... I never owned a Ford and was simply looking at the stats before doing any real research. Someone at work drives one of those Ford SUV's, but it is not the Hybrid edition. Anyhow, the top two vehicles remains the Honda CR-V and the Toyota Rav-4. I was told that the spare tire on the back could be a cause for concern in a rear end collision, which has me researching much more than I had originally had intended. Elsewhere, someone pointed out that the rear hatch on the 2007 Honda CR-V is flush right above the bumper and a collision would destroy the hatch because of the way it connects to the bumper when it's closed/locked. Those few concerns are the reason for my continued effort. I hope my efforts will help someone lurking in this newsgroup as she or he begins their own car research. > The CRV had the best "emergency" handling which > I would relate also to "sporty" handling. That would > be a big factor for me... Until I round up my preferred choices, then take them for a test drive, I will continue asking as many questions as I possibly can think of. > The Ford had the worst braking performance. I hate to cross Ford off the list, but your helpful facts have been a wealth of help! > The Forester and RAV with I4s were a second > slower to 60 and the CRV and Escape hybrid > were another second behind. Just checking my list, I crossed the Forester off my list a while back - must have been something in the specs that didn't measure up. > The mileage of the Highlander (19 overall) was worst > of the bunch reflecting its bigger size and V6 engine. Wow, the Highlander had pretty good numbers last time I checked. > CRV got 21 I didn't realize the CR-V was that bad! > the Escape hybrid got 26. Wow, those numbers listed on those websites are not very accurate. The 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid (2 WD) got city: 36 / hwy: 31. > If you get the Highlander with the hybrid, > it jumps to 27, and it actually gets faster. > Of course the cost soars as well. I know!! That's why I went one level down to the gas version which wasn't too far off the mark. > Lots more info at the site. Not free but pretty cheap, > especially when you are shopping for a car. The magazine edition is coming very soon - I can't wait!! > So, Fish, why do you want an SUV anyway? Shopping can be fun, but when you have to have something delivered because you can't get it to fit in your trunk, it takes the fun out of shopping. If you have ever shopped at the Home Depot, for example, you will find more pick-up trucks, SUV's, etc. than at your - actually, I see them everywhere. But seriously, shopping for big items you can take with you and save on delivery is something I have been wanting. Last year, I had replaced every major appliance in my kitchen. If I had an SUV, I could have saved some time and expense. But when I think about other shopping, like my frequent trips to New York - oh how I would just LOVE to buy those items that I currently cannot consider without the expense of delivery. There are other reasons, such as the ability to sleep in the back when I'm too tired to drive, I just pull into a rest stop off the turnpike and take a nap. But with gas mileage getting better as technology continues to improve, we will be seeing better designs. As for now, the overly hyped --- H U M M E R --- (had to stretch those letters) has gas mileage not worth bragging about. _________ ===fish=== ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ On 1/3/07 8:49 PM, in article pXZmh.2573$PN2.77@trnddc07, "fish" > Gordon McGrew respectfully added... > [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > Wow, those numbers listed on those websites are not very accurate. After I bought the '06 CR-V last year, I found that the mileage number reported by Consumer Reports from their tests turned out to be exactly what it gets (and has absolutely nothing in common with the EPA sticker). Based on that one data point, CR is probably the best bet to get an idea about real world mileage. Btw - the auto issue is always April. > The 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid (2 WD) got city: 36 / hwy: 31. > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > ===fish=== > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ E Meyer respectfully typed: > After I bought the '06 CR-V last year, I found that > the mileage number reported by Consumer Reports > from their tests turned out to be exactly what it gets How would you rate the service department? Personally, I was shocked that the Honda service center was closed on a Saturday, while the Toyota Service Center was open. I kind of have an idea of which vehicle I am leaning towards. I might rent a vehicle for a day and drive it on the highway (not something I would do on a demo test drive), then when I am ready to take the official test drive, I will have real world knowledge. _________ ===fish=== ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ > E Meyer respectfully typed: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I would do on a demo test drive), then when I am ready to take the official > test drive, I will have real world knowledge. You ARE aware that the dealers are *NOT* run by the auto maker, right? Your dealer is an independent franchise. My local Honda dealer is open every day but Sunday, and the service department is top notch. I rarely use them, though, since my car has never broken, and they are too far away for normal maintenance... On 1/6/07 12:27 AM, in article pjHnh.1160$Ul4.639@trnddc05, "fish" > E Meyer respectfully typed: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How would you rate the service department? The three times I've been in there in 12,000 miles, they were extremely accommodating. Two free oil changes while I waited and on the third visit, they did a four wheel alignment and replaced a defective plastic cargo hook in under an hour while I waited. Although I did call ahead for appointments, I haven't need one. Free car wash and Starbucks coffee every time. I don't know if they are open on Saturdays - being semi-retired, I don't have that problem anymore. About the only issue I have with them is the fact that they are 20 miles away. The car is showing itself to be unlikely to need any further visits for dealer service for a long time. Now that I've used up the free oil changes that came with it I'll start doing them myself. so barring some major mechanical catastrophe while its under warranty, I doubt I'll see the place again. > Personally, I was shocked that the Honda service center was closed on a > Saturday, while the Toyota Service Center was open. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I would do on a demo test drive), then when I am ready to take the official > test drive, I will have real world knowledge. Not a bad idea at all. Talk to the dealers, they might just give you one for a day. When I started looking, the 4-cylinder RAV-4 looked better on paper (more horsepower, features, etc.), but after driving them both, the Honda just felt better - it had a tighter feel & seemed more responsive despite the horsepower numbers. At the time I was shopping, the V6 Rav4 had just come out and the one dealer that had one was so overtly sleazy that I never got to drive it ("we have to run a credit check be allowing a test drive in case you steal the car"), or the decision might have gone the other way. > _________ > ===fish=== > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ >I want THAT experience and the service dept. at the Toyota >dealership -compared- to the Honda dealership was dramatic - a clear winner >by far. > >However, chosing a vehicle based only on one single item or feature, such as >a superior service dept. might be unwise. You might also want to check different dealerships if you have more than one to choose from. There may be big differences between dealerships with the same brand. How can you compare service departments anyway? Does one look cleaner and shinier? That might just mean they do a lot of hosing, if you know what I mean. On 1/3/07 12:04 AM, in article fjhmp2p8apf2ovh4r91hm1en8drb0vtrnr@4ax.com, >> I want THAT experience and the service dept. at the Toyota >> dealership -compared- to the Honda dealership was dramatic - a clear winner [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and shinier? That might just mean they do a lot of hosing, if you > know what I mean. I don't see where the service department of the local dealer should be an issue (except maybe if you go with a Ford). In 12 years of Hondas, I have visited a dealer's service dept once for an inconsequential warranty issue on the '96 Odyssey, once for a warranty issue with the '00 Acura TL (peeling trim on a window frame), once for a defective plastic cargo hook on the '06 CR-V. All under warranty, all at different dealerships, and all resolved quickly without hassle. These cars just don't need to constantly return to the dealer like your American cars of yesteryear. There are no tune-ups until at least 100,000 miles, just periodic fluid changes and checks that you can easily do yourself, or have done pretty much anywhere. > My friend had her spare tire stolen on her RAV4. I am considering a > CRV---and will not look at a RAV4 just for the spare tire reason. Also > if you have a regular car you would have to empty the trunk to get to > the spare tire as well--right? Unless you expect to change tires once a > week(In my 24 years of driving I have never had a flat) I would not use > the convienence of a spare tire to justify your purchase. The cover on the rear spare deteriorates and need replacement every two years or so. Also, it makes it a hassle to use hitch-mount bicycle racks, though I did find one that would work on the older CR-V. You can get a set of wheel locks that includes one for the spare, but it's still a pain. Don't use spare tire mount bicycle racks, as the rear door isn't strong enough. I'm so glad that Honda got rid of the damn side-opening door, and external spare. As to the alarm, I guess you could always go with an after-market alarm. I installed the Honda alarm on my CR-V and it was an easy installation (plug and play), but after a few years, something went wrong and it sometimes would take pushing the remote button fifty or a hundred times for the car to unlock. I've had good luck with the CrimeGuard alarms from Crutchfield. When I bought the vehicle, I had the dealer remove the piece of crap after-market alarm that they had installed, but I was pissed because there were still holes that they had drilled. I had them replace the trim around the speedometer and gauger, but there were other holes in the chassis. I'll never go back to that dealer again. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.