Anyone drive 2007 Honda CR-V?

August 29, 2007 8:20 PM

We're in the market for something like the Honda CR-V or Toyota RAV-4. Anyone with experience of the 2007 remake of the CR-V?

We're looking at the Honda CR-V or the Toyota RAV-4 (to replace a 1997 Explorer). We no longer need to tow a boat or haul kids. Anyone with experience of the 2007 remake for the CR-V?

I like the looks of the new Honda better than the newer RAV, but OTOH our '94 Camry has been very reliable and so maybe Toyota's the way to go. Though this won't be decisive, it's interesting that Toyota seems more prepared to discount or deal, while Honda insists on sticker price.

Earlier threads on the CR-V focus on legroom, cargo space, philosophical musings on SUVs etc, so that's all pretty clear.

Thanks!

posted by Rain Man to Travel & Transportation (25 answers total)

Anecdotally, I have a 2001 CR-V and my mom drives a 2003. Both great vehicles.

So far as the price--if it's anything like it was 4 years ago, the demand for CR-V's is high enough that they actually have trouble keeping them on the lot--so they can get away with charging sticker price. That may not be the case any longer, though.

I say get the CR-V just because I love mine, but either vehicle would probably serve you well.
posted by DMan at 8:24 PM on August 29, 2007

Not trying to derail, but if you are at the Toyota dealership anyway, see if they have an 08 (NOT 06) Scion xB. We just got one and love it. It has a lot of room inside, looks (imho) cool outside, has a Camry engine, a lot of good standard equipment, and is good on gas.
posted by 4ster at 8:28 PM on August 29, 2007

Sorry, I don't have much to report on the CRV or the RAV-4, but I do want to say that while you're shopping that class of vehicles, take a look at the Mitsubishi Outlander. Edmunds Inside Line has one in their long-term test fleet (they blog about it) and it seems to get a lot of love.
posted by roomwithaview at 8:44 PM on August 29, 2007

Response by poster: Thanks so far -- hey they do like the Outlander don't they!

One thing I forgot to mention is that earlier comments on the CRV suggest it is rather pokey. Some said get the RAV six cylinder instead. The 2007 CRV (I think) has an upgraded engine.

Any comments on peppiness? I don't ususally feel the urge to start a drag race at red lights, but being able to pass other slowpokes every so often would be pleasant.
posted by Rain Man at 8:52 PM on August 29, 2007

My 2001 has a 4-cylinder engine and it's not that great...if I set the cruise to 70, when I go up a hill it has to really work...goes up to 4500-5000 RPM for a bit. The 2003 is better...I can't remember if it has a 6-cyl or just a 4-cyl with more horsepower, but it's a noticable difference.

If they've improved the engine since then (which it sounds like they have) then you should be fine. I can pass slowpokes with my car easily.
posted by DMan at 8:59 PM on August 29, 2007

IIRC, the RAV is a very low emission vehicle and the CR-V is not.

I had 2 CRV's. Not very good in the snow. Actually, worse than my Camry. Both those distant losers to any of three Subarus I have owned.

Quality on CRVs was extremely high, as is typical of Honda. Shame they sucked in snow.
posted by FauxScot at 9:04 PM on August 29, 2007

Response by poster: Thanks, D - the 2007 is still a 4 cylinder. I'm glad you like your CRVs so much. I think you're right about Honda and pricing - there are very few CRVs on the lot, quite a few more RAVs for what it's worth.

I can say that our '94 Camry is a 4 cyl, and when we rented a V-6 once we noticed no difference. I replaced a worn-out 6 cyl in a Volvo wagon once with a rebuilt 4 cyl and noticed some minor diff. For SUVs that work (towing or whatever) I think power is more importrant, and my about-to-be replaced Explorer is a V-8.
posted by Rain Man at 9:05 PM on August 29, 2007

Response by poster: Fauxscot - good point - my Volvo wagon (front wheel drive) was absolutely helpless on ice and not good in snow. We would definitely get the CRV version that switches to AWD/4WD when the back wheels slip, so I think that will help with the snow (we live in MinneSnowta, so this is a key factor).

As for emisisons, the new CRV brochure lists the 2007 model as ULEV-2
posted by Rain Man at 9:10 PM on August 29, 2007

I hope this isn't too tangential, but try out the back seat in the RAV (or get a couple of friends to hop in the back once you've positioned the front seat to your liking). I like driving an RAV--very comfortable for long distances--but I'm really not fond of being a backseat passenger or trying to put luggage in it.

I hate riding in the back seat of my parents' RAV when we go visit them (I'm 5'9"; my husband is 6'). It's cramped and miserable. The interior might as well be a compact sedan that's a little higher off the ground. Even the cargo space is fairly small--I think it's not really any bigger than that of my Subaru Impreza (just more vertical and less horizontal). Maybe the 2007s are better, but be sure to check.
posted by wintersweet at 9:14 PM on August 29, 2007

My parents bought a '07 CRV in January, and it's not a bad little vehicle. I have driven it a couple times, most notably from Calgary to BC and back, and it didn't fare too badly. You can sure tell it's a four-banger when you're trying to climb some hills though.

A few things about it that bug me:
1. Sitting in the backseat stinks.
2. I have trouble remembering how to operate the windshield wipers - the "control stick" thingy hides behind the steering wheel and I can't see it from my sitting position. I am used to driving a 5th gen Civic and I don't have this problem.
3. Big A pillars and rear blind spots. Maybe that's just because it's an SUV, which I am definitely not used to driving.

No real opinion on how it handles in the snow, my only other points of reference are the 96 Grand Voyager van it replaced, and the aforementioned 5th gen Civic that has tires woefully inadequate for snow. Compared to those two, it's a champ.
posted by threetoed at 9:33 PM on August 29, 2007

Response by poster: Back seat experience is an excellent point too, wintersweet.

Apart from leg room, the CRV has rear-seat heating ducts (not sure about AC). This is not mentioned in the RAV specs as far as I can see, so maybe the RAV lacks this feature.

Our current Explorer has rear AC/heating ducts & controls, which made our son's ride a lot better in back. Our previous Jeep did not, and my driving foot would be red hot before much heat was felt in the back.
posted by Rain Man at 9:34 PM on August 29, 2007

Have you considered a Suzuki Grand Vitara? I bought one instead of the CR-V and saved a whole bunch of money and got similar features.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:37 PM on August 29, 2007

Response by poster: Sounds like the backseat is poor in both vehicles, and though our son is now off in college, he is 6 ft and probably getting taller, so that's not irrelevant for us even if not a daily concern. (My mom is 5'1" and getting shorter!)

Our hills in Minnesota do not rival western Canada of course, though every couple of years we drive out to visit family in Denver and like to drive in Rocky Mountain National Park, so thanks for the warning 3toed!
posted by Rain Man at 9:41 PM on August 29, 2007

Response by poster: BlueBeetle, thanks the G Vatari does look like something quite similar for quite a bit less money. Have you had the Suzuki long enough to comment on reliability and performance? A major attraction of the CRV or RAV is their reputation for quality. Our Explorer has had some expensive repairs (new transmission) while our Camry has been worry free for more than 13 years.
posted by Rain Man at 9:48 PM on August 29, 2007

I drive a 2004 CR-V, and my mom drives a 2006 (I believe) CR-V. I agree with DMan - I don't find either car to be particularly pokey. Passing slowpokes is no problem.

I like the car a bunch. I haven't had too many problems - last spring my air conditioner exploded, but they ruled it a "catastrophic failure" and it was covered under the warranty.

The most noticeable difference I find between my mom's car and mine is that the steering and braking (especially braking) is way more sensitive on hers than mine. I don't know if that really matters, though. Just takes a a few minutes of getting used to when you've been driving one car or the other.
posted by Quidam at 10:03 PM on August 29, 2007

My friend just bought a '07 RAV4 last week. It's a V6, limited edition. She tested this & the CRV, and likes the Toyota better. It's cheaper, the brakes are softer, her bluetooth connection is very important to her, the back seat is movable & flatfolded, etc.
posted by growabrain at 10:30 PM on August 29, 2007

I bought a 07 RAV4 in december, after test driving the CRV, RAV4, and the Subaru Forester. I spent a lot of time on the edmunds forums reading people's reviews - you may wish to do the same.

I prefer toyota in general, so that may have swayed my opinion (the wife prefers honda, however, and still chose the RAV4). In general, they were very similar. I didn't like the blind spots of the CRV - maybe it's just my height or something but I didn't like my field of vision in the car. The back seat of the RAV4 felt roomier, and i've taken friends on 8-hour car trips and the folks back there were comfortable the whole way. Some people like having the spare tire on the back of the vehicle (more storage inside), and some don't (i hear insurance is higher for models with spare tires on the outside as smaller accidents tend to do more damage to the rear door).

You might also want to consider selling practices: I hear buying a honda with the features/specs the way you want them is easier than with toyota. It may have been a "grass is greener" thing, but the folks on the forum seemed to indicate as much. I know that finding the car i wanted was difficult (white / V6 / standard package - no frills); I found only 1 in the greater san diego area.

So far i've been very happy with my purchase. The only thing i regret is not getting the 4WD - in march i started camping / backpacking / hiking a lot more again and it would come in handy. The RAV4 has taken me through areas where i really should have had a 4WD car and made it through okay - if that's any testiment.

Feel free to email me (email in profile) if you have any questions.
posted by escher at 12:13 AM on August 30, 2007

Response by poster: Thanks everyone, this has been very helpful. We will definitely check out the sight lines of the CRV and consider back seat legroom as well. I'm going to investigate the other makes & models mentioned too. We will certainly be getting a vehicle with at least part-time 4WD capability. The final decision may come down to which 'feels right' when we do road tests.
posted by Rain Man at 5:23 AM on August 30, 2007

The Honda Element uses a modified CR-V chassis, is considerably cheaper than a CR-V and has extremely generous leg room for back seat passengers. If you aren't put of by the styling, it's worth considering.
posted by Scoo at 6:19 AM on August 30, 2007

We're looking at CR-Vs as well - I'm intrigued by the "cheaper" comment above - we're finding that for the features you get on the base model of the CR-V, particularly safety features - you're getting a lot mor bang for your buck. Sorry to piggy back but can anyone comment on that, apples for apples? Because I'd love to know if my perception is off.
posted by Medieval Maven at 6:29 AM on August 30, 2007

We bought a 2007 RAV4 V6 4WD limited edition to replace a dead Subaru Forester. We've been very very happy with it. Echoing escher, the backseat in the 2007 is quite roomy, a big improvement over previous model years. The V6 has plenty of pickup when you want it, and the drive is very comfortable.

My husband wasn't crazy about the looks of the CR-V so we didn't really consider that an option.
posted by ambrosia at 7:33 AM on August 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Snow--hard to say what "good handling" is since I'm a college student and love driving in bad weather anyway. I've driven a 2WD Honda Odyssey in the snow and it was horrible, sliding all over the place, very scary experience. I won't say that the CR-V handled perfectly, but it was a whole lot better than the 2WD thing. You can make it slide if you want to (yay!) but it sticks pretty well. Of course, YMMV.

One caveat to the automatic 4WD: it sometimes kicks on at really inopportune moments. The other day at the car wash I was trying to get over a bump and didn't push the accelerator as hard as I should have, and it thought that the front wheels were slipping so it kicked the back ones on--it kind of lurched forward a bit, which was a little scary. Works pretty good in the snow though, you can feel it when it comes on. That said, if Honda came out with one that had an actual switch for 4WD, I'd consider upgrading.
posted by DMan at 8:04 AM on August 30, 2007

I often drive a friend's 2007 CR-V and I really like it. I think that there is a lot of room in the backseat and that the seats are comfortable, too. The way they fold down and against the floor I normally drive a modified Subaru, and I don't find the CR-V that pokey. It's not nearly as bad as a lot of American SUVs of that size. Note that it is a new body, at least, and maybe new other stuff, too, as of 2007.

It's important to note that the CR-V's all wheel drive is primarily a front drive system that only uses the rear wheels when slippage has been detected. It's not really a substitute for a real all wheel drive or four wheel drive system, although it is probably more than good enough for most normal usage in normal to mildly snowy climates. It's not an off-road vehicle or a real bad weather vehicle, although putting snow tires on it might make it a lot better in the snow.

All that said, I think that it's a great car, and they hold their value very well. If you negotiate well right now, you can probably get a base model 2007 for around $21-$22k, and you can't really find, say, 2004's with 50k miles for less than $19k. that should tell you how much people like them and how reliable they are.
posted by iknowizbirfmark at 8:26 AM on August 30, 2007

I drive an '05 CR-V and I love it, solid handling, not overly poky (it's not exactly zippy like our Prelude, but it's not poky in most situations, especially once the VTEC kicks in), very comfortable (we've done several 1500 mile trips in it), pretty roomy and very nicely finished. I don't like the newer body, but this is a very well-made car.

My sister just bought an '07 RAV-4 and the newer one is a definite improvement over the one we test drove when we were looking. It's bigger, nicely put-together and seems decent to drive (good gas mileage too). The fit and finish is still inferior to the CR-V, and the back seats are just okay, but it's definitely roomy.
posted by biscotti at 8:29 AM on August 30, 2007

Response by poster: Update by OP: I ended up giving the old Explorer one more winter, and just bought a new 2008 CR-V. So far we're quite happy. Thanks again for all the comments and advice!
posted by Rain Man at 6:56 PM on May 10, 2008