Are the new CR-V's really that terrible?
- Thread starter cwilliamsws6
- Start date
Originally Posted by carviewsonic
Not an owner, but was seriously considering one last year until I test drove. Too much road noise for me, crossed the CRV off my list. Mazda CX-5 was much quieter, nicer interior too.
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by hallstevenson
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
And McDonald's sells 2.4 billion hamburgers a year. Does it make it good food?
My wife's Camry was 9 years old. We decided to replace it with a crossover. We drove the Rav and Rav hybrid, the CR-V and a Tuscan. The Mazda wasn't large enough. Didn't drive a Subaru or anything European. The CR-V was the best driving and quieter of the 3. (Not as quiet as a sedan) We bought the LX to avoid the turbo concerns. I like the seats and the ride. Mileage is very close to her Camry and should hit it after break-in. I swore I'd never get a cvt but it drives fine, actually better on the highway hills because there's no harsh downshifts. The dealer was excellent to work with. They only added splash guards and the dealer fee was under $200. They came down $2000 off sticker. I can find nothing to complain about 2 months in.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Aichiguy
My wife's Camry was 9 years old. We decided to replace it with a crossover. We drove the Rav and Rav hybrid, the CR-V and a Tuscan. The Mazda wasn't large enough. Didn't drive a Subaru or anything European. The CR-V was the best driving and quieter of the 3. (Not as quiet as a sedan) We bought the LX to avoid the turbo concerns. I like the seats and the ride. Mileage is very close to her Camry and should hit it after break-in. I swore I'd never get a cvt but it drives fine, actually better on the highway hills because there's no harsh downshifts. The dealer was excellent to work with. They only added splash guards and the dealer fee was under $200. They came down $2000 off sticker. I can find nothing to complain 2 months in.
Originally Posted by hallstevenson
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by hallstevenson
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
And McDonald's sells 2.4 billion hamburgers a year. Does it make it good food?
Originally Posted by Pelican
Originally Posted by carviewsonic
Not an owner, but was seriously considering one last year until I test drove. Too much road noise for me, crossed the CRV off my list. Mazda CX-5 was much quieter, nicer interior too.
I rode in the back of the CX5 mazda a couple weeks ago. Not great as a passenger in the rear, not a great ride quality and I didn't like the interior materials. But, the engine had good low end torque and the transmission seemed to shift well and was generally well behaved. So likely the best powertrain in this segment in the "Japanese" models.
I also rode in my brother new CR-V in Phoenix. We just went up a block to pick up some pizza. Not enough time to make any assessments.
The CR-Vs are perfectly mediocre leasemobiles, like the Rogue, Equinox, Escape, etc. etc.
The 2020 CRV gets a new Hybrid version, which should be smooth and great like the Accord Hybrid system shared with it.
Amazing MPG of course, like above 40 MPG average.
It might even quiet it some, if thats where the complaints are, and one would hope the handling & ride quality was acceptable.
The Hybrid version will not use the troubled 1.5T either, another plus. The Hybrid's engine will be easy on oil.
What all this boils down to is that opinions are like, well you know what. Anyone spending their money on a vehicle should make up their own mind after test driving whatever different vehicles that are in their price range. Why would you care what anyone else thinks about your purchase. And as far as the comment about old people driving CRV's, old people tend to be smart with their money and value a dependable vehicle.
I drove a CR-V when The Critic was in my neighborhood. They aren't bad per se. But Honda lately is trying too [censored] hard to be "luxurious" since the interiors of the higher-spec cars (EX/EX-L/Touring) are very near Acura spec but there's something about it that irks me. I wouldn't say pretentious but it doesn't feel right in a "common" car. Toyota has dropped down to 1990s-2000s Ford or 2000s GM level for their interiors.
The new 1.5T feels un-Hondalike. It actually moves and is happy in the lower RPM band. Compared to the RAV4, the CR-V just feels a bit more pleasant to be inside.
I went for a 40 mile drive in a relatives nine month old CRV. Like riding in a crate. Loud, buzzy and very unpleasant. Felt every little bump in the road. Couldn't wait to get out of that thing and into my Hyundai SantaFe. SantaFe is like a Mercedes compared to that thing in every respect.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 2010Civic
I'd rather have a new Odyssey over the CR-V. Way more room and the nice 3.5L V6. Much quieter and smoother ride and only a few less mpg's.
Originally Posted by dareo
If you are a car enthusiast then yes a CR-V is not great. An average regular person? CR-V is just right.
If i had to buy a crossover my list would look like this:
1. Tiguan = Cheapest in segment and decent
2. Rav4 = Better
3. CX-5 = Also Better
We had a 2014 CRV. Purchased new. It's was a loud and rough ride. Most Honda's ride firm in my experience. Seats of that generation not so comfortable. Loved the brakes.... perfect pedal feel. Decent cargo space honestly.
Outgrew the vehicle with a growing family. Moved to a Highlander for a little more room because could not convince wife minivan was way to go.
Turbos and cvts are not widely accepted as being superior in terms of reliability. More of a fuel economy thing.
Originally Posted by paoester
The stigma of min-vans stills haunts the nation. Sigh. Minivans are great, we know that, but try telling that to image-sensitive folks.
