Honda CR-V

[gbb]

Light hearted post but semi serious, I want one. Its come from nowhere really, my wife mentioned she liked them and I immediately agreed and have suddenly become very needy for one. We considered a newer car early this year but there wasnt a single car I fancied.
It'd have to be diesel, i couldnt live with the petrol engines fuel consumption....not even 40 mpg on a run I believe.

Not sure I want to see peoples opinions those for the CR- V will only make it worse, those against will spoil a rare covetous moment for me.

 

[Sillyoldman]

I have the hybrid. 45 mpg on a run but it’s urban driving where it really delivers and achieves 55 mpg. I am really impressed with it.
By run I mean motorway speeds

 

[CanucksTraveller]

An older one or the more modern one?
I drove the older one (2010 I think) as an Ambulance response car, it was okay. Just okay. It didn't make me want to buy one.

 

[gbb]

An older one or the more modern one?
I drove the older one (2010 I think) as an Ambulance response car, it was okay. Just okay. It didn't make me want to buy one.

I gather engine type / size can make a big difference but ironically I think that's (2010) a 3rd generation which most reviewers seem to agree, was one of the best versions (dependant on engine size / type)
I'd be stretching to something between 2013 to 2016 I suspect.

 

[kennycl]

I have a 2013 Petrol, we really like it. Real world mpg with about 50% city driving, 50% country/ motorway is about 34.

The EX version is nice of you can find it, especially roof bar rails. Had no issues mechanically yet at all. The boot is massive, which is a big plus.

Happy to answer any questions!

 

[Salar]

I won't pee on your parade, promise.

But if I was buying another Honda (I've had three, all VTEC's) it would be a VTEC petrol. Not sure what the VTEC engines are like now,but the ones I had were excellent sports engines.

 

[Drago]

You want the series 2 or 3, the 2 litre VTEC or 2.2 diesel. The 1.6 series 3 provides forward motion, but little else, and isn't economical enough to make putting up with the sluggishness worthwhile.

The "AWD" is ok, better than nothing, but requires significant wheelspin before it engages (most rival systems enange either instantaneously to within a 7th of a wheel rotation), if it even engages at all, so is perhaps the least effective system out there. The series 2 is a little bit better than the 3 in that regard, but don't be buying one intending to handle muddy farm tracks or feet of snow - it's there to provide a bit of dynamic stability in normal motoring, not any kind of multi surface ability. Not all series 3 cars were AWD, so check before buying if that's important to you.

Spacious, well made, economical diesels, even the petrol isn't a raging dipso, comfortable, stable. A lot to be said in their favour. Mrs D misses hers greatly, as do I, but she needed an auto so it had to go.

 

[MarkF]

The MK2 petrol 2L is a classic, simple, reliable, utility vehicle, maybe the last of them? MK3 onwards, lost-the-plot blah SUV's.

 

[12boy]

Your car models sure are different from the same name vehicle in the US. My 2010 CRV has a 2.4 liter motor with 180 hp. I bought for my wife when she finished her first round of chemo and radiation, used for $15 k with 73 k miles in 2018. I don't like it much because I can't get the seats comfortable and after a couple hundred miles it is a literal PITA. However, it accelerates fast enough for her, is pretty quiet, and does well on ice and snow. I bought myself a 2003 for $5k that had 113 k and while it is noticeably slower I like it better. With the rear seats out, which is a five minute job, it holds an amazing amount of stuff for its size. I like its utilitarian interior.

 

[Drago]

The 2.4 litre engine was available here but only in the Accord. A good unit, strong and well developed, but petrol engines over 2 litre or so never sell well here so a lot of manufacturers don't bother bringing them in.

 

[biggs682]

I used several Crv's when working for a Honda Dealership around 2003-2005 only had petrol option those days great cars but could be heavy on fuel .

Good boot space once seats folded .

No experience of any later ones .

 

[Shadow]

Are you still interested?
I know someone with a 2007 2.2 diesel ES 118,000 miles.

 

[gbb]

Are you still interested?
I know someone with a 2007 2.2 diesel ES 118,000 miles.

They hold good prices, anywhere from £1,500 to £3k at that age I think (and £3k is a lot for a car that's 13 years old). It's a bit older than I hoped for but tbf, I do like the body style on those ones.
Thanks for the heads up but looking for something newer I think.

 

[Arjimlad]

We have a 65 plate 4WD 1.6 diesel.

It has I think 160bhp, and enough grunt for carrying four adult sized persons, a 9 yr old, luggage including 2 lots of carp fishing clobber, a roofbox, up to five bikes and 2 dozen bottles of wine on holiday. It goes very well in normal use, although I am not a fast driver.

It was the only car we tried which would accommodate our tall teenage sons sitting behind us with a child seat in the middle.

It has been great for what we want, and I would very happily have another. In the winter it does 47mpg and in the summer 52.

It has been off-road over stubble fields and up grassy wet slopes without any problem.