2022 Honda CRV. Turbo 1.5 vs. 2.0/Hybrid

[Nicasio]

So son and his wife are about to purchase a new Honda CR-V AWD. I think going with the Hybrid is a no brainer considering the gas savings… I’ve never owned a Honda Hybrid nor one with a turbo. I just know all my past Honda’s naturally aspirated motors have been bulletproof. The turbo may be faster, but I’m more leaning towards reliability… For about $1500 more wouldn’t the 2.0/Hybrid be the best choice?

 

[Rand]

hybrid ex awd around 33-34.5k here

regular ex awd 31-33k

so for that tiny amount I would definitely consider hybrid.

now on the rav4 where its near 5k thats a harder sell.

The best of the bunch is the rav4 prime PHEV but those are 10k more.. double ouch.. 302hp would be nice vs the other hp though.


Reading reviews they seem to knock the hybrid for uneven "peaky"power even if it has more power than the non-hybrid.
how that feels vs the non-hybrid who knows they usually compare it to the rav4.

 

[maineiac]

hybrid ex awd around 33-34.5k here

regular ex awd 31-33k

so for that tiny amount I would definitely consider hybrid.

now on the rav4 where its near 5k thats a harder sell.

The best of the bunch is the rav4 prime PHEV but those are 10k more.. double ouch.. 302hp would be nice vs the other hp though.


Reading reviews they seem to knock the hybrid for uneven "peaky"power even if it has more power than the non-hybrid.
how that feels vs the non-hybrid who knows they usually compare it to the rav4.

But with the RAV4 Prime, you get a $7,500 tax credit from the federal government making the Prime the bargain of the bunch by a long shot! Here in Maine we also get an "instant" $1,000 credit (applied to the purchase price at point of sale) from the state. It was a "no brainer" decision for us.

 

[supton]

The best of the bunch is the rav4 prime PHEV but those are 10k more.. double ouch.. 302hp would be nice vs the other hp though.

It would be, although I keep eyeing it for the towing bump (standard RAV4 is 1,500lb, hybrid is 1,750 and Prime is 2,500--yes I know, who in their right mind would and all).

 

[slacktide_bitog]

The 1.5T is terrible! Get the hybrid instead

 

[Rand]

But with the RAV4 Prime, you get a $7,500 tax credit from the federal government making the Prime the bargain of the bunch by a long shot! Here in Maine we also get an "instant" $1,000 credit (applied to the purchase price at point of sale) from the state. It was a "no brainer" decision for us.

only if you owe 7500 in federal taxes.

 

[maineiac]

only if you owe 7500 in federal taxes.

Yup.... but if you are paying less than that, what are you doing buying a new car??

 

[Rand]

Yup.... but if you are paying less than that, what are you doing buying a new car??

so you need to make 80k+ to buy a new car? where do you live.. California I'd believe it.

Why are we giving this tax break to people who make more money?
IE giving the "rich" a tax break on their toys.. for example on the tesla model S when they had it.
Its also hugely valuable to be filing joint for this.

its exactly the opposite of what is needed.
For mainstream adoption..
You should get a flat 7500 rebate optionally that fades out the more you make IMO.
not a tax credit that gets bigger with bigger income... how does that make sense?

Could also do a limit per person vs a limit on the manufactuer amount sold before it fades out.

Edit: cleaned up some text.

 

[supton]

Yup.... but if you are paying less than that, what are you doing buying a new car??

Fair question, but I know a couple of my vehicles were owned for 10+ years and >200k in the process. If I didn't live in the rust belt it's possible that I'd still have one of them. At that point, if one is going to use for 20 years, might it pay in the long run, even if it sounds against the usual financial advice?

 

[Danh]

So son and his wife are about to purchase a new Honda CR-V AWD. I think going with the Hybrid is a no brainer considering the gas savings… I’ve never owned a Honda Hybrid nor one with a turbo. I just know all my past Honda’s naturally aspirated motors have been bulletproof. The turbo may be faster, but I’m more leaning towards reliability… For about $1500 more wouldn’t the 2.0/Hybrid be the best choice?

In addition to fuel economy, the hybrid also has the benefit of port fuel injection that should help with fuel dilution issues.

On the other hand, no spare tire of any sort with the hybrid and no option for a trailer hitch, even if only for a bike rack.

So you pays your money and makes your choice.

 

[The Critic]

so you need to make 80k+ to buy a new car? where do you live.. California I'd believe it.

Why are we giving this tax break to people who make more money?
IE giving the "rich" a tax break on their toys.. for example on the tesla model S when they had it.
Its also hugely valuable to be filing joint for this.

its exactly the opposite of what is needed.
For mainstream adoption..
You should get a flat 7500 rebate optionally that fades out the more you make IMO.
not a tax credit that gets bigger with bigger income... how does that make sense?

Could also do a limit per person vs a limit on the manufactuer amount sold before it fades out.

Edit: cleaned up some text.

I don't think most working professionals earning less than 80k in a metropolitan areas is in a position to buy a new car, but that is just my opinion. Contrary to some of the stuff posted on here, I am also not convinced that the cost of living is drastically lower outside of CA, at least not in the major metropolitan areas.

 

[philipp10]

I don't think most working professionals earning less than 80k in a metropolitan areas is in a position to buy a new car, but that is just my opinion. Contrary to some of the stuff posted on here, I am also not convinced that the cost of living is drastically lower outside of CA, at least not in the major metropolitan areas.

Are you kidding? My $350k home would be a million in Silicon Valley and 700k in LA or San Diego. That alone makes living outside California a whole lot easier.

 

[pghvolvo]

The Honda 1.5Turbos have had oil dilution issues in the past. Me if I could get the 2.0 liter as a non turbo and non hybrid, I'd be a happy camper.

 

[The Critic]

Are you kidding? My $350k home would be a million in Silicon Valley and 700k in LA or San Diego. That alone makes living outside California a whole lot easier.

I recently looked at some "nicer" homes near DFW and Charlotte, both are very comparable in pricing when compared against Sacramento. Same story with Seattle. Based on some internal salary data, company salaries are also not significantly different either.

 

[PimTac]

Every dollar you save on fuel is real money. Gasoline is not going to get cheaper. The trend is for it to go up.

Besides, nobody buys a CRV for speed. The choice of the hybrid is a good one.

 

[Zee09]

Port not GDI...

 

[maineiac]

so you need to make 80k+ to buy a new car? where do you live.. California I'd believe it.

Why are we giving this tax break to people who make more money?
IE giving the "rich" a tax break on their toys.. for example on the tesla model S when they had it.
Its also hugely valuable to be filing joint for this.

its exactly the opposite of what is needed.
For mainstream adoption..
You should get a flat 7500 rebate optionally that fades out the more you make IMO.
not a tax credit that gets bigger with bigger income... how does that make sense?

Could also do a limit per person vs a limit on the manufactuer amount sold before it fades out.

Edit: cleaned up some text.

I guess you don't understand my signature - thought it was pretty obvious.... frugal New Englander. And yes, I wouldn't buy or recommend buying a new car with federal tax liability less than $7500. But that's just me.

BTW, it's intellectually lame, socially irresponsible and just plain lazy to call out "California" every time you hear something that you don't agree with. Is Ohio the paragon of reasonability and judgement?

 

[maineiac]

Fair question, but I know a couple of my vehicles were owned for 10+ years and >200k in the process. If I didn't live in the rust belt it's possible that I'd still have one of them. At that point, if one is going to use for 20 years, might it pay in the long run, even if it sounds against the usual financial advice?

As you point out, it certainly pays to keep any car for as long as you can justify it vis a vis the cost/prospective cost of repairs (congrats on running them for so long up here in the salt belt ). Generally it's financially advantageous to start with a few year old car that has taken a disproportionate percentage of the depreciation hit and then drive it as long as reasonably possible (I don't necessarily do that). To each his own though and YMMV

 

[supton]

As you point out, it certainly pays to keep any car for as long as you can justify it vis a vis the cost/prospective cost of repairs (congrats on running them for so long up here in the salt belt ). Generally it's financially advantageous to start with a few year old car that has taken a disproportionate percentage of the depreciation hit and then drive it as long as reasonably possible (I don't necessarily do that). To each his own though and YMMV

My problem with getting a few years old is that it might not have depreciated (I usually go import) and/or it's already got that much rust started. It's like a clock starts up here, once it sees its first salt, it's a-tickin'.

 

[skyactiv]

Why does the Dave Ramsey philosophy enter into soo many of these threads here on BITOG?