• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How are those CR-V's?

ViviTheMage

ViviTheMage

Lifer
Love my 05 Grand Cherokee 4.7L, but it's a bit overkill for what we use it for (towing 3-4 times a year + dog in trunk and when we foster, so sometimes 2 dogs).

I was thinking of selling it, and getting a CR-V? Seem to get better mileage, while keeping 4wd/trailer hitch, with some utilityness to it.

We live in the city, so the MPG burst will be helpful .. lately only getting 10-13 average.

How are they? How are the engines ...I have yet to test drive one.

... just thinking here.

EDIT :

let me add .. I drove a Daihatsu 1500CC when I was in Costa Rica ... some 700km during our 12 day trip...and thought the size was actually OK, I assume the CR-V is much bigger? At least in the trunk it is. The only issue I had with the Daihatsu was weak engine with 4 of us in the car + 2 bags (55kilo each) of luggage.

EDIT 2 :

Apparently the AWD system is a joke? We use this a lot, especially during winter/snowy months, or towing out of the lake.
 
Last edited:
Are you looking at new or used? Sadly they don't really get great mileage for what they are, although it will be better than 10mpg. The problem is they are rather underpowered for the vehicle and so are quite slow. The new ones also seem to have lost any driving appeal as well. They are decently roomy inside though, probably as big as the Cherokee because the rear floor is fairly low. Also the 'awd' is effectively FWD 99% of the time, its a torque based transfer so you have to slip a lot for anything to go to the rear.
 
Bah, well that is worthless.

I think i'll wait for the Q5 hybrid, or cross my fingers a hybrid diesel comes out. I am in no rush, just saw one today, and remember what we drove in costa rica, and it seemed like a good thought.
 
ViviTheMage said:
Bah, well that is worthless.

I think i'll wait for the Q5 hybrid, or cross my fingers a hybrid diesel comes out. I am in no rush, just saw one today, and remember what we drove in costa rica, and it seemed like a good thought.
Click to expand...


Hybrid diesel, highly unlikely. A diesel variant I am 99% sure I saw a memo stating it (among other Audi models) would be arriving stateside within the next couple of years.
 
You can look at the cheaper Escapes, similar mileage and maybe a little bit better suited for towing and other stuff... its more of an SUV, CR-V is a car.
 
Damn, only 17/25 MPG with a 3.0TDI ... some weak numbers 🙁. I wonder if they'll do ANY better in the Q5....but I am not optimistic...granted :

That engine produces 225 hp and 406 lb-ft of torque and with the Q7's 5600 pounds to carry, delivers an 8.5-second 0-60 mph time and fuel economy figures of 17 mpg in city driving and 25 on the highway. Considering that all three new models are a thousand pounds lighter and more aerodynamic, expect highway figures in the thirties and 0-60 mph times that will remain competitive with most gas-powered competitors.
Click to expand...
 
ViviTheMage said:
Damn, only 17/25 MPG with a 3.0TDI ... some weak numbers 🙁. I wonder if they'll do ANY better in the Q5....but I am not optimistic...granted :
Click to expand...

well... if you are OK with that price range, you can look at Escape Hybrid too or even or even Lexus 400h, great milage!
 
ViviTheMage said:
Damn, only 17/25 MPG with a 3.0TDI ... some weak numbers 🙁. I wonder if they'll do ANY better in the Q5....but I am not optimistic...granted :
Click to expand...

It gets 30mpg in the Tourag, I would expect that or better in a smaller/lighter Q5. The Q7 is a pretty damn big vehicle, most of the gas variants can barely get 20 hwy.
 
Demo24 said:
Are you looking at new or used? Sadly they don't really get great mileage for what they are, although it will be better than 10mpg. The problem is they are rather underpowered for the vehicle and so are quite slow. The new ones also seem to have lost any driving appeal as well. They are decently roomy inside though, probably as big as the Cherokee because the rear floor is fairly low. Also the 'awd' is effectively FWD 99% of the time, its a torque based transfer so you have to slip a lot for anything to go to the rear.
Click to expand...

I've averaged 28mpg on a fully tank in my 2008 CRV AWD. I think that's pretty good for a small SUV with AWD.
 
ShawnD1 said:
True that. Video demonstrating how a very small percentage of power goes to the rear wheels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t09ExAUgtyE

Other than that, it's a pretty nice vehicle.
Click to expand...

i dunno, i find it a bit odd that that video was made by a subaru dealership...not exactly impartial.

my family had a cr-v, and while it was nowhere as good as the land cruiser, i never experienced that sort of uselessness/no power to the rear wheels while fronts were spinning. it got me up snow covered hills etc. without too much worry.

it was a previous gen though, things may have changed.
 
krunchykrome said:
I've averaged 28mpg on a fully tank in my 2008 CRV AWD. I think that's pretty good for a small SUV with AWD.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, guess the new ones have improved a bit there. Still, if you compare it to a Forrester with fulltime AWD and more powerful, with 1 less gear, it gets effectively the same mileage.
 
Demo24 said:
Fair enough, guess the new ones have improved a bit there. Still, if you compare it to a Forrester with fulltime AWD and more powerful, with 1 less gear, it gets effectively the same mileage.
Click to expand...

I wont touch a Forrester with a 5000 yard stick...rather hideous vehicles.

The Escape hybrid isn't so bad, but the numbers sitll aren't "there". If I have to deal with a hybrid, i'd want 50+ mpg...even in an SUV/midsize SUV.
 
vshah said:
i dunno, i find it a bit odd that that video was made by a subaru dealership...not exactly impartial.

my family had a cr-v, and while it was nowhere as good as the land cruiser, i never experienced that sort of uselessness/no power to the rear wheels while fronts were spinning. it got me up snow covered hills etc. without too much worry.

it was a previous gen though, things may have changed.
Click to expand...


My dad has a previous gen with a manual, and he's had good luck with it in snow as well. I'm not sure if it's because it runs fairly skinny tires and most of the weight is over the front, or if the rears are actually helping to a useful extent. It will spin the front tires quite a lot though, and when I was learning to drive I would frequently 'peel-out', so without having been outside the vehicle to watch it in the snow I couldn't say how accurate that video is.
 
vshah said:
i dunno, i find it a bit odd that that video was made by a subaru dealership...not exactly impartial.
Click to expand...
Of course it's biased. They're trying to tell you why you should buy this particular car. They show you the full time AWD system because that's Subaru's strongest point. Jeep would probably talk about manually enabled 4hi and 4lo. Chrysler has their "we make cars in detroit" thing. Giving selective information doesn't mean it's wrong 😉

You'll notice that they selected very specific competitors. If you did that exact same test on a Jeep in 4lo, the Jeep would climb the hill easily. That's why they didn't test one.
 
Last edited:
mine was a manual without traction control as well. i've heard owners report that disabling the traction control ends up sending more power to the rear wheels (since the front wheels are allowed to spin more, applying more pressure to the hydraulic pump that actuates the transfer clutch)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top