Any cars you regret buying? - My '14 CR-V experience

[dgunay]

I would not run from Honda even these days with new and modern technologies; case in point our both Honda in my signature;

both overall well build vehicles; first, the accord we bought it used with 20K miles on the odometer in May 2020; no strange sounds, very quite, spacious, very predictable power delivery and smooth, fuel efficient city at 27mpg; downside, its just that suspension is firm and its seats are uncomfortable at least in our EXL model

the CRV, we have owned it since day one; bought it in Nov 2016; for 89k miles of our ownership, no light bulb was replaced on it. the only thing I replaced was the fuel cup; again smooth, quiet, and efficient at 26mpg city; the only downside perhaps its CVT that gets busy at times, also it burns some oil but i'm staying on top of it, no biggie there

in the end, their resale value is one of the best in the industry; needless to say, i'm very happy with both cars would get another Honda in a heartbeat

Good for you - my car is pre-facelift model and I can only talk about 2012-2014. I rarely see a drivetrain update in the same generation when they facelift a model (2015+), and I think I am not the only person complained, that's why they updated it in the mid-cycle instead of waiting new gen.

I'm sure 2015+ drives much smoother with higher torque figures and CVT trans and gets better MPG, as a bestseller compact SUV it better be. In my situation, I try not to buy a used direct injection and CVT car and wanted to have oldschool Honda experience (as reliable as it can get), that's why never considered 2015+.

I was also brand loyal like your case, but realized life is too short to stick with one brand and worry about resale value if you keep your cars long term.

 

[miden851]

Good for you - my car is pre-facelift model and I can only talk about 2012-2014. I rarely see a drivetrain update in the same generation when they facelift a model (2015+), and I think I am not the only person complained, that's why they updated it in the mid-cycle instead of waiting new gen.

I'm sure 2015+ drives much smoother with higher torque figures and CVT trans and gets better MPG, as a bestseller compact SUV it better be. In my situation, I try not to buy a used direct injection and CVT car and wanted to have oldschool Honda experience (as reliable as it can get), that's why never considered 2015+.

I was also brand loyal like your case, but realized life is too short to stick with one brand and worry about resale value if you keep your cars long term.

i'd say if I wanted to replace one of the cars in the future that would be the Accord, its so firm and uncomfortable for my liking; on the contrary, CRV is very conformable yet not the plush ride; very balanced ride i'd say

also, I think this experience on both cars is greatly influenced by the set of tires on the vehicles; CRV rides on Michelin xTour AS and they are great touring tire in my experience; on the other hand, my Accord rides on Bridgestone Ecopia and they are not so great set of tires to begin with

 

[meep]

We have a 15crv with the CVT, wife’s car. The CVT in it is remarkable for a utilitarian runabout. It favors super low rev driving, which I like, and Honda knows how to let a motor rev for power if called for it. It doesn’t rubber band as much as earlier cvts, but as someone else mentioned I think one learns to anticipate heavy-throttle roll-off. What I wanted to add, however, is I genuinely think Honda let a MT enthusiast have a shot at building the “sport” mode profile. For what they have to work with, it’s pretty good - favors a “lowest” allowable engine rpm relative to mph, 2k around town, 3k highway, and provides usable engine braking and control when jockeying in dense traffic. It’s certainly able to set the little suv to more raucous driving than you see them dishing out. I find it handy in crowded city and interstate conditions, allows me to drive more precisely & smoothly with less braking through congested passes.

 

[FZ1]

We have a 15crv with the CVT, wife’s car. The CVT in it is remarkable for a utilitarian runabout. It favors super low rev driving, which I like, and Honda knows how to let a motor rev for power if called for it. It doesn’t rubber band as much as earlier cvts, but as someone else mentioned I think one learns to anticipate heavy-throttle roll-off. What I wanted to add, however, is I genuinely think Honda let a MT enthusiast have a shot at building the “sport” mode profile. For what they have to work with, it’s pretty good - favors a “lowest” allowable engine rpm relative to mph, 2k around town, 3k highway, and provides usable engine braking and control when jockeying in dense traffic. It’s certainly able to set the little suv to more raucous driving than you see them dishing out. I find it handy in crowded city and interstate conditions, allows me to drive more precisely & smoothly with less braking through congested passes.

Different strokes. I feel the honda cvt lugs the engine. I prefer a "real" auto trans with individual speeds and shifting. Example Camry. Jmo

 

[Brybo86]

What causes the oil burning in the 2.4L, piston rings? I just don't have much experience with them besides basic maintenance. My grandparents' CRV probably burned a quart every 2000 miles. I'm seeing a girl with a 2009 Accord 2.4L that has higher mileage but it eats oil like crazy.

If she knows how to keep the oil topped up she is a KEEPER!

 

[Brybo86]

Our most disappointing car was a 2008 Honda Accord with the 3.5L V6. Oil consumption, fouled spark plugs, transmission shutter, multiple recalls - I think we got rid of it after 1 year.

Needed a VCM muzzler

 

[Quantico]

My nightmare cars. Vw jetta. 94 and audi 80 1989 . And my f150 pickup 83. And my 1990 and 1991 jeep wranglers.

My old porsche 944 purchased at 100 k and kept it 150 k more miles and 22 years. Cost almost nothing. Most inexpensive and reliable vehicle i have owned.