If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
staythecourse
Posts: 6130
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:40 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by staythecourse » Tue May 01, 2018 5:58 pm

mega317 wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:45 pm
I'm very happy with my CX-5 and my wife loves her Forester, which is the same size but somehow feels bigger to me, harder to park and like I'm going to roll it if I take a turn too fast. Although now with a second child plus 90 pound dog it's starting to feel a little small for a trip of any length.
I will second the cx-5. Handles like a sedan, very safe, good mileage, decent looking, pretty good standard features (rear view camera, keyless go, etc...), reliable, etc...

Good luck.
"The stock market [fluctuation], therefore, is noise. A giant distraction from the business of investing.” | -Jack Bogle

dknightd
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:57 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by dknightd » Tue May 01, 2018 6:07 pm

TimeRunner wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:58 pm
Give her the CRV and get a Mazda MX-5 Miata Roadster. :wink:
problem solved :)

ssquared87
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:54 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by ssquared87 » Tue May 01, 2018 6:16 pm

Y.A.Tittle wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:43 pm
Sandi_k wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:35 pm
Mazda CX-5. It has a traditional transmission, instead of the CVT in the CR-V and the Toyota RAV4.
The RAV4 has a traditional auto transmission. It is also the best choice because it is the most reliable, holds its value and is easy to work on.
It's also the worst choice because it looks the most boring, drives like garbage, and has a cheap interior with terrible ergonomics.

Best/Worst depends what values the OP prioritizes the highest. The Mazda CX-5 is the better car (looks better, drives better, better ergonomics, higher quality materials) although marginally less reliable than the Toyota, but the difference in reliability is insignificant. They are both above average reliability and have relatively low repair cost.

CULater
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:59 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by CULater » Tue May 01, 2018 6:30 pm

I wouldn't worry about the 1.5L turbo in the CRV burning oil. There's an oil problem with that engine but that isn't it...
May you have the hindsight to know where you've been, The foresight to know where you're going, And the insight to know when you've gone too far. ~ Irish Blessing

ssquared87
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:54 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by ssquared87 » Tue May 01, 2018 6:36 pm

dsmclone wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 1:59 pm
My wife's old 2013 Acura RDX with a 276 horsepower V6 was fast and quiet, Over it's life it got 23mpg

My wifes 2018 VW Tiguan w/ a 184 horsepower turbo 4 is slow and sounds like a 4cyl. So far with 5k miles it has gotten 24mpg. This is 24mpg with stop/start that the RDX didn't have as well as a lot better 8 speed transmission than the 6 speed in the RDX.

I think these turbo 4cyl's may get better gas mileage in the lab but in the real world they don't deliver.
That has not been my experience.

I've got a 530 with 240hp/260lb/ft torque turbo 4. It's able to propel my 3.8lbs car to 60 in 6 seconds, and doesn't sound or feel like a 4cyl at all. In fact, you can't even hear it because they've used so much sound deadening. I test drove the 6 cylinder version which was slightly smoother but not much, definitely a little faster but not a huge difference, and sounded the same from inside the car.

It's performance is on par with my 2011 328 which had an inline 6 engine and was a smaller car. Compared to the 3, my 5 gets far better gas mileage both in town and on the highway, but the biggest improvement is on the highway. I'm getting roughly 35-36 MPG on the highway vs. my 328 which never beat 28mpg. Around town though, i'm only getting about 24 MPG in LA traffic with the 530 vs. 18mpg or so in the 328.

Recently I've also driven a 2003 540 which is the older version of my current car. It's much smaller but it weighs about the same thing and has a v8 engine yet the 0-60 time is the same as my 4 cylinder 530, but its rated at 15mpg city, 23 highway. No idea whether it comes close to that in reality.

4-cyl have the potential to deliver excellent economy and performance. The Tiguan is probably underpowered vs. the size and weight of the vehicle so fuel economy suffers because the engine is taxed. Your wife's Tiguan weighs the same thing as my 530 and has 60hp and 60lb/ft torque less, plus it has higher drag coefficient and more surface area so the engine is definitely overworked. If it were a more powerful 4-cyl, it potentially could deliver better performance and economy at the same time, but the poor performance isn't due to the fact that it's a 4 cylinder, its just that it's an underpowered 4cylinder.

rockonhumblepie
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:51 pm

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by rockonhumblepie » Tue May 01, 2018 11:05 pm

2016 thru 18' Ford Edge 2.0

5.0 GT Mustang for you...

Y.A. Tittle is the first name I remember watching football with my Dad 8-) rockon'

ssquared87
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:54 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by ssquared87 » Wed May 02, 2018 10:08 am

Y.A.Tittle wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 9:47 pm
ssquared87 wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 6:16 pm
Y.A.Tittle wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:43 pm
Sandi_k wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:35 pm
Mazda CX-5. It has a traditional transmission, instead of the CVT in the CR-V and the Toyota RAV4.
The RAV4 has a traditional auto transmission. It is also the best choice because it is the most reliable, holds its value and is easy to work on.
It's also the worst choice because it looks the most boring, drives like garbage, and has a cheap interior with terrible ergonomics.

Best/Worst depends what values the OP prioritizes the highest. The Mazda CX-5 is the better car (looks better, drives better, better ergonomics, higher quality materials) although marginally less reliable than the Toyota, but the difference in reliability is insignificant. They are both above average reliability and have relatively low repair cost.
Perhaps you should learn something about cars before posting your ignorance.
Perhaps reading reviews and trying out the competitors would enlighten you. I have done both in helping a friend shop for a new car. The Mazda CX-5 and Subaru Forrester were his finalists and he chose the CX-5. Here are some highlights from the reviews:

Edmounds:
Take a test drive of the RAV4 and some other top crossovers and you'll likely notice that the RAV4 looks and feels a bit behind the times. Its utility-focused interior lacks the refinement, quality and style of key rivals that can feel borderline luxurious. You can't even get the RAV4 with real leather upholstery. The RAV4 is also less engaging to drive, with subpar handling and an engine that trails in terms of both acceleration and fuel economy. Tech features can also be lacking

https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/rav4/2018/review/

Motortrend:
In a Big Test comparison of small crossovers, the non-hybrid 2016 Toyota RAV4 placed fifth out of nine competitors: “It’s safe to say none of our judges would ever recommend actually buying one over some of the other finalists here
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/toyota/rav4/
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/cx ... -big-test/

Caranddriver:
Still, it can’t compare with rivals such as the Honda CR-V and the Mazda CX-5 that are quicker, more fun to drive, and more fuel efficient. The Toyota’s soft suspension was comfortable, but its lifeless steering and unresponsive throttle define dull. Our test vehicle took 8.3 seconds to accelerate to 60 mph and 6.0 seconds to get from 50 to 70 mph; both figures are on the slow end of the class. Its braking performance, stopping from 70 mph in 175 feet, and cornering grip (0.79 g) were average at best. Its fuel economy was also disappointing. We observed 21 mpg in mixed driving and recorded 25 mpg on our 75-mph highway fuel loop—significantly underperforming compared to the EPA estimates of 22 mpg city, 28 highway, and 25 combined.

The Adventure is Toyota’s attempt to spruce up the RAV4’s cheap-looking and disjointed interior by stamping the trim name and mountain logos on the all-weather floor mats and door-sill protectors, adding carbon-fiber-like trim panels, and wrapping the shift knob with leather. Unfortunately, that doesn’t redeem the unholy amalgamation of hard plastics and the squeaks and rattles that proliferate throughout the cabin.

https://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/rav4

User avatar
snackdog
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:57 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by snackdog » Wed May 02, 2018 10:50 am

The 2017 Mazda CX-3 scored dead last in JD Powers initial quality ratings for miniature SUVs. Honda CR-V is in the slightly larger "compact" SUV group and was middle of the pack.

http://www.jdpower.com/cars/study/2017- ... t-SUV/1081

User avatar
munemaker
Posts: 3524
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:14 pm

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by munemaker » Wed May 02, 2018 11:56 am

snackdog wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 10:50 am
The 2017 Mazda CX-3 scored dead last in JD Powers initial quality ratings for miniature SUVs. Honda CR-V is in the slightly larger "compact" SUV group and was middle of the pack.

http://www.jdpower.com/cars/study/2017- ... t-SUV/1081
JD Power ratings do not have much value to me. That's "as delivered" quality, right?

I am more interested in how the reliability is 5 to 10 years down the road. That's why I look to Consumer Reports.

User avatar
snackdog
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:57 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by snackdog » Wed May 02, 2018 12:07 pm

JD Powers is the best source of reliability for new vehicles. Otherwise, you have to purchase a 5-10 year old vehicle.

CULater
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:59 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by CULater » Wed May 02, 2018 12:47 pm

munemaker wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 11:56 am
snackdog wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 10:50 am
The 2017 Mazda CX-3 scored dead last in JD Powers initial quality ratings for miniature SUVs. Honda CR-V is in the slightly larger "compact" SUV group and was middle of the pack.

http://www.jdpower.com/cars/study/2017- ... t-SUV/1081
JD Power ratings do not have much value to me. That's "as delivered" quality, right?

I am more interested in how the reliability is 5 to 10 years down the road. That's why I look to Consumer Reports.
Also check sites like carcomplaints.com, NHTSA, and vehicle owner's forums. The publication rags like CR and JD Powers don't give you the whole story, particularly the bad stuff that you need to know about. Example: the CRV. Nothing about the gas in oil issue, recall of 350,000 CRVs and halting of sales in China on this vehicle in the rags.
May you have the hindsight to know where you've been, The foresight to know where you're going, And the insight to know when you've gone too far. ~ Irish Blessing

inbox788
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:24 pm

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by inbox788 » Wed May 02, 2018 1:07 pm

munemaker wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 11:56 am
JD Power ratings do not have much value to me. That's "as delivered" quality, right?

I am more interested in how the reliability is 5 to 10 years down the road. That's why I look to Consumer Reports.
Initial quality covers the ? first 3 months?, while the dependability study looks at 3 years. This is good for folks that lease and/or want to buy an off lease car.
http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/j ... lity-study

Trouble is serious problems are watered down by averages, and they don't have a crystal ball, and hindsight is 20/20. If the CRV engine oil/fuel issue isn't resolved, it won't show up at 3 year statistics in any meaningful way, and only slowly make its way into the 5-10 year data.

In this Odyssey example, you won't know if the 06-08 electrical problems get worse over time, and there was a gradual period the 02-04 transmission problems weren't so bad. [and why the overall below average on the '11? when everything is so good and only low score is average electrical?]
Image

NHRATA01
Posts: 500
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:57 pm
Location: New York City area

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by NHRATA01 » Wed May 02, 2018 2:21 pm

I can't see myself ever driving one of these cute utes, but I will say the CX-5 seems the most appealing. FWIW in the latest issue of Motor Trend it beat out the Lexus NX in a one on one comparison.

Or since I prefer some pep in my ride I'd consider the Equinox 2.0T.

dsmclone
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:50 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by dsmclone » Wed May 02, 2018 2:34 pm

ssquared87 wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 6:36 pm
dsmclone wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 1:59 pm
My wife's old 2013 Acura RDX with a 276 horsepower V6 was fast and quiet, Over it's life it got 23mpg

My wifes 2018 VW Tiguan w/ a 184 horsepower turbo 4 is slow and sounds like a 4cyl. So far with 5k miles it has gotten 24mpg. This is 24mpg with stop/start that the RDX didn't have as well as a lot better 8 speed transmission than the 6 speed in the RDX.

I think these turbo 4cyl's may get better gas mileage in the lab but in the real world they don't deliver.
That has not been my experience.

I've got a 530 with 240hp/260lb/ft torque turbo 4. It's able to propel my 3.8lbs car to 60 in 6 seconds, and doesn't sound or feel like a 4cyl at all. In fact, you can't even hear it because they've used so much sound deadening. I test drove the 6 cylinder version which was slightly smoother but not much, definitely a little faster but not a huge difference, and sounded the same from inside the car.

It's performance is on par with my 2011 328 which had an inline 6 engine and was a smaller car. Compared to the 3, my 5 gets far better gas mileage both in town and on the highway, but the biggest improvement is on the highway. I'm getting roughly 35-36 MPG on the highway vs. my 328 which never beat 28mpg. Around town though, i'm only getting about 24 MPG in LA traffic with the 530 vs. 18mpg or so in the 328.

Recently I've also driven a 2003 540 which is the older version of my current car. It's much smaller but it weighs about the same thing and has a v8 engine yet the 0-60 time is the same as my 4 cylinder 530, but its rated at 15mpg city, 23 highway. No idea whether it comes close to that in reality.

4-cyl have the potential to deliver excellent economy and performance. The Tiguan is probably underpowered vs. the size and weight of the vehicle so fuel economy suffers because the engine is taxed. Your wife's Tiguan weighs the same thing as my 530 and has 60hp and 60lb/ft torque less, plus it has higher drag coefficient and more surface area so the engine is definitely overworked. If it were a more powerful 4-cyl, it potentially could deliver better performance and economy at the same time, but the poor performance isn't due to the fact that it's a 4 cylinder, its just that it's an underpowered 4cylinder.
Yes, the BMW 4 cylinders are pretty good. I test drove a m230i before buying my m235i. I still prefer the 6 cylinder and based what I've seen on 2addicts forum, the gas mileage difference is minimal and the additional 70 horsepower is a nice to have.

ssquared87
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:54 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by ssquared87 » Wed May 02, 2018 2:41 pm

snackdog wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 12:07 pm
JD Powers is the best source of reliability for new vehicles. Otherwise, you have to purchase a 5-10 year old vehicle.
JD Power is pretty useless, and it doesn't measure quality or reliability at all, it measures satisfaction. Here's a great article explaining that, but i'll summarize below:
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/t ... dy-feature
http://www.motortrend.com/news/j-d-powe ... ity-25937/

JD Power measures two things:
1. Defects - When functionality does not work as design (i.e. Automatic headlights don't work)
2. Design - When the customer doesn't like how the car is designed, or not familiar with how it operates, not necessarily whether there is any defect with how the car operates. (i.e. customer doesn't like the switch or location of the switch to turn the automatic headlight function on are off, or customer can't figure out how to change radio station)

The rating does not distinguish between these two.

A great example in the article actually applies to my latest car purchase. BMW kept getting bad marks for cruise control functionality. It wasn't because the cruise control didn't work on new cars, its because BMW used to have a stalk on the steering column to turn the cruise control on or off. Customers who were new to the brand and used to the buttons on the steering wheel that every other car has kept complaining because they didn't understand how to make BMW's systems work.

Eventually BMW just caved and got rid of the stalk and started using the inferior buttons on the steering column vs. the stalk even though the BMW stalk was more intuitive, less distracting, and easier to use. When I first got a BMW the stalk was new to me and confused me, once I learned how to use it, I preferred that over the stupid buttons on the steering wheel. In an effort to appease people new to the brand, BMW changed their design and pissed off pretty much anyone who has driven a BMW and knew how to use the cruise control. Sadly the new BMWs all have the steering wheel buttons, so I dinged BMW for that when I got my JD Power Survey
Last edited by ssquared87 on Wed May 02, 2018 2:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

ssquared87
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:54 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by ssquared87 » Wed May 02, 2018 2:42 pm

dsmclone wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 2:34 pm
ssquared87 wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 6:36 pm
dsmclone wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 1:59 pm
My wife's old 2013 Acura RDX with a 276 horsepower V6 was fast and quiet, Over it's life it got 23mpg

My wifes 2018 VW Tiguan w/ a 184 horsepower turbo 4 is slow and sounds like a 4cyl. So far with 5k miles it has gotten 24mpg. This is 24mpg with stop/start that the RDX didn't have as well as a lot better 8 speed transmission than the 6 speed in the RDX.

I think these turbo 4cyl's may get better gas mileage in the lab but in the real world they don't deliver.
That has not been my experience.

I've got a 530 with 240hp/260lb/ft torque turbo 4. It's able to propel my 3.8lbs car to 60 in 6 seconds, and doesn't sound or feel like a 4cyl at all. In fact, you can't even hear it because they've used so much sound deadening. I test drove the 6 cylinder version which was slightly smoother but not much, definitely a little faster but not a huge difference, and sounded the same from inside the car.

It's performance is on par with my 2011 328 which had an inline 6 engine and was a smaller car. Compared to the 3, my 5 gets far better gas mileage both in town and on the highway, but the biggest improvement is on the highway. I'm getting roughly 35-36 MPG on the highway vs. my 328 which never beat 28mpg. Around town though, i'm only getting about 24 MPG in LA traffic with the 530 vs. 18mpg or so in the 328.

Recently I've also driven a 2003 540 which is the older version of my current car. It's much smaller but it weighs about the same thing and has a v8 engine yet the 0-60 time is the same as my 4 cylinder 530, but its rated at 15mpg city, 23 highway. No idea whether it comes close to that in reality.

4-cyl have the potential to deliver excellent economy and performance. The Tiguan is probably underpowered vs. the size and weight of the vehicle so fuel economy suffers because the engine is taxed. Your wife's Tiguan weighs the same thing as my 530 and has 60hp and 60lb/ft torque less, plus it has higher drag coefficient and more surface area so the engine is definitely overworked. If it were a more powerful 4-cyl, it potentially could deliver better performance and economy at the same time, but the poor performance isn't due to the fact that it's a 4 cylinder, its just that it's an underpowered 4cylinder.
Yes, the BMW 4 cylinders are pretty good. I test drove a m230i before buying my m235i. I still prefer the 6 cylinder and based what I've seen on 2addicts forum, the gas mileage difference is minimal and the additional 70 horsepower is a nice to have.
Agreed the 6 cylinder is smoother and faster and I do prefer it...I just couldn't justify it based on the amount of traffic that I sit in. In general I'll take an inline 6 over a 4, but there are some amazing 4-cyl out there

inbox788
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:24 pm

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by inbox788 » Thu May 03, 2018 2:27 am

latesaver wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:20 pm
I like the CR-V because it's fuel efficient and (hopefully proves to be) reliable. It also doesn't have a bunch of bells and whistles I don't need, like a heated steering wheel (I live in south FL).

I don't like the idea of getting another CR-V because having two seems...duplicative? More to the point, i actually think the leg room sucks, at least in the driver's seat. I have very long legs and i always feel cramped in the CR-V.

I also think the entertainment system is wonky and doesn't work as well as the "car play" that comes in many other models.

I should have added that i bought a 2015 model. it only had 12K miles so it seemed like the perfect BH car. reliable, someone else at the depreciation, etc etc.
You make a good case to just get the CRV. Just because you already have one, and getting another one isn't that appealing (even less appealing than replacing the existing vehicle with a newer of the same one), but the alternative may be choosing a less optimal vehicle with even more compromises.

As far as legroom, I compared the 2015 to the 2018 and they both have 41-42", so you won't see much change, but the CRV is on lists of best cars for tall people. You're going to have to do some legwork (pun intended) to solve this problem. The Rogue and Forester might be good candidates to start with, but if you can't find a suitable compact SUV, you may to go up a size in vehicle.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/bes ... all-people

Seems like 2015 carplay wasn't a thing, so if that's what you mean by "wonky", take a look at the 2018, which should have a real version. I think toyota just started putting carplay in some of their new cars (though they're still lagging in android auto). Toyota is making lame excuses about android auto security and was slow in adopting carplay in the first place because they were trying to protect their inferior products and their developers are behind IMO.
http://www.crvownersclub.com/forums/98- ... -v-ex.html
http://www.crvownersclub.com/forums/20- ... icles.html

Consider leasing a 2018 CRV. Sales should be slowing and prices coming down as pent up demand for the new model is met, factory is getting more efficient, and some folks may be avoiding the engine oil/fuel issues. If you find a good deal and return the car in 3 years, you'll have little worries. Or if the issue is overblown or resolved by then, then you could consider buying it out at the residual price.

User avatar
snackdog
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:57 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by snackdog » Thu May 03, 2018 2:49 am

ssquared87 wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 2:41 pm

JD Power is pretty useless, and it doesn't measure quality or reliability at all, it measures satisfaction. Here's a great article explaining that, but i'll summarize below:
JD Power is literally the benchmark for the auto industry. The gold standard. Every major automaker buys into it and many even tie employee compensation to results, which tells you the profound influence the survey has on car manufacturing. Companies use good results to sells cars via advertisements. In fact, the first major coup for JDP was to inform Mazda their customers were reporting high rates of engine failure - something Mazda had no clue about and no method of measuring. Consumer Reports doesn't come close and I'm not aware of any other reliable estimates of dependability.

cheesepep
Posts: 785
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:58 pm

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by cheesepep » Thu May 03, 2018 2:56 am

Owner of a brand new CR-V (at least it was in 2015), and I'm ok with it. It has the vibration at low idle problem like many CR-Vs do have and it does annoy me. Also, no volume knob and touchscreen is horrible. Perks are it is very roomy and not so high up like many other cars.

craimund
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:39 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by craimund » Thu May 03, 2018 4:58 am

inbox788 wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 1:07 pm
munemaker wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 11:56 am
JD Power ratings do not have much value to me. That's "as delivered" quality, right?

I am more interested in how the reliability is 5 to 10 years down the road. That's why I look to Consumer Reports.
Initial quality covers the ? first 3 months?, while the dependability study looks at 3 years. This is good for folks that lease and/or want to buy an off lease car.
http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/j ... lity-study

Trouble is serious problems are watered down by averages, and they don't have a crystal ball, and hindsight is 20/20. If the CRV engine oil/fuel issue isn't resolved, it won't show up at 3 year statistics in any meaningful way, and only slowly make its way into the 5-10 year data.

In this Odyssey example, you won't know if the 06-08 electrical problems get worse over time, and there was a gradual period the 02-04 transmission problems weren't so bad. [and why the overall below average on the '11? when everything is so good and only low score is average electrical?]
Image
Bought a new 2003 Odyssey to replace a Dodge Caravan with a bad transmission. Everyone (including presumably Consumer Reports) was raving about the Odyssey. Paid a premium for the vehicle - dealer wouldn't go below MSRP. Transmission went out twice. Piece of crap.
"When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose"-Bob Dylan 1965. "When you think that you've lost everything, you find out you can always lose a little more"-Dylan 1997

craimund
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:39 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by craimund » Thu May 03, 2018 5:00 am

snackdog wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 2:49 am
ssquared87 wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 2:41 pm

JD Power is pretty useless, and it doesn't measure quality or reliability at all, it measures satisfaction. Here's a great article explaining that, but i'll summarize below:
JD Power is literally the benchmark for the auto industry. The gold standard. Every major automaker buys into it and many even tie employee compensation to results, which tells you the profound influence the survey has on car manufacturing. Companies use good results to sells cars via advertisements. In fact, the first major coup for JDP was to inform Mazda their customers were reporting high rates of engine failure - something Mazda had no clue about and no method of measuring. Consumer Reports doesn't come close and I'm not aware of any other reliable estimates of dependability.
JD Power shows Buick and Chevrolet with better reliability than Honda and Toyota. Some people here won't accept that an American car can be more reliable than a foreign made car.
"When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose"-Bob Dylan 1965. "When you think that you've lost everything, you find out you can always lose a little more"-Dylan 1997

ssquared87
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:54 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by ssquared87 » Thu May 03, 2018 5:38 am

craimund wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:00 am
snackdog wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 2:49 am
ssquared87 wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 2:41 pm

JD Power is pretty useless, and it doesn't measure quality or reliability at all, it measures satisfaction. Here's a great article explaining that, but i'll summarize below:
JD Power is literally the benchmark for the auto industry. The gold standard. Every major automaker buys into it and many even tie employee compensation to results, which tells you the profound influence the survey has on car manufacturing. Companies use good results to sells cars via advertisements. In fact, the first major coup for JDP was to inform Mazda their customers were reporting high rates of engine failure - something Mazda had no clue about and no method of measuring. Consumer Reports doesn't come close and I'm not aware of any other reliable estimates of dependability.
JD Power shows Buick and Chevrolet with better reliability than Honda and Toyota. Some people here won't accept that an American car can be more reliable than a foreign made car.
I can easily see the American brands beating Toyota. It’s a brand that relies far to heavily on reputation whereas other brands are putting solid effort into improvement.

Snack dog cited the JD Power Initial Quality study which doesn’t measure reliability at all.

JD power also has the Vehicle Dependability Study which measures actual defects over 3 years. It also factors in people who don’t know how to pair their Bluetooth phone, but after 3 years I think it’s safe to say that if you can’t figure out how to pair the phone there is a serious design flaw. That said, it’s still not fair to consider a car unreliable because the Bluetooth is confusing to use.

Using the VDS as a benchmark for reliability is a fairly reasonable way to predict reliability but thinking that the Initial Quality Stufy will provide any meaningful information on a new model’s long term prospects is misguided at best

itsgot8
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:20 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by itsgot8 » Thu May 03, 2018 7:53 am

It would be worth your time to check out the 2018 Chevy Equinox. I bought one for The Wifester last month and so far we love it.

inbox788
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:24 pm

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by inbox788 » Thu May 03, 2018 10:27 am

craimund wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 4:58 am
Bought a new 2003 Odyssey to replace a Dodge Caravan with a bad transmission. Everyone (including presumably Consumer Reports) was raving about the Odyssey. Paid a premium for the vehicle - dealer wouldn't go below MSRP. Transmission went out twice. Piece of crap.
What years? Would JD Power (90 days/3 years) or Consumer Reports (5-10 year) surveys have helped you? The 90 day surveys might help catch warranty covered items, but by 3 years, finding out what was repaired under warranty is too late IMO. Besides reputation and momentum effect, it's not clear how useful these surveys are to specific cars and years when some are good while others not. First year redesigns are especially risky because of more changes, and buying one later in the multi-year cycle gives you a little more visibility, but don't accurate reflect fixes and improvements, which still lag. Some poor luck car owners have to be the canaries...

CULater
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:59 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by CULater » Thu May 03, 2018 10:45 am

I'm not sure how much it helps to avoid the first year of a redesigned vehicle. For example, in the case of the new CRV there is no difference between the 2017 and 2018 models. They're all coming off the same assembly line and being shipped to dealer lots, and it sorta depends on the calendar of dealer shipments as to when autos get a "2018" designation. Minor tweaks can be made continuously, but major fixes require that the assembly line be stopped and re-constructed to implement those changes. Most new-gen models have a lifespan of 8 years or so, with significant changes after 3-4 years. If you really want to avoid major bugs, you should probably be buying a model near the end of it's lifespan. Waiting until the second year is probably just a myth, IMO. Certainly is in the case for the CRV, since it has the same engine with the same oil dilution problem in the 2018 model as the 2017 one. And actually this engine was in the 2016 Civic with the same problem but still hasn't been fixed.
May you have the hindsight to know where you've been, The foresight to know where you're going, And the insight to know when you've gone too far. ~ Irish Blessing

inbox788
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:24 pm

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by inbox788 » Thu May 03, 2018 11:14 am

CULater wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 10:45 am
I'm not sure how much it helps to avoid the first year of a redesigned vehicle. For example, in the case of the new CRV there is no difference between the 2017 and 2018 models. They're all coming off the same assembly line and being shipped to dealer lots, and it sorta depends on the calendar of dealer shipments as to when autos get a "2018" designation. Minor tweaks can be made continuously, but major fixes require that the assembly line be stopped and re-constructed to implement those changes. Most new-gen models have a lifespan of 8 years or so, with significant changes after 3-4 years. If you really want to avoid major bugs, you should probably be buying a model near the end of it's lifespan. Waiting until the second year is probably just a myth, IMO. Certainly is in the case for the CRV, since it has the same engine with the same oil dilution problem in the 2018 model as the 2017 one. And actually this engine was in the 2016 Civic with the same problem but still hasn't been fixed.
It's taken this long to get some data on the problem. It's not something that's immediately apparent, but at some point it reaches a crisis, and something has to be done immediately ASAP. It's not clear Honda is ready to swallow a bitter pill, but they've adapted in the past.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/12 ... n-20121109

I wonder what the resale value of 2012 Civics have been, and whether it's suffering from initial criticism or long forgotten, but I've cross that one off my list. A cursory scan at autotrader puts the prices of the 2012 right between 2011 and 2013 as if no one cares now.

Rupert
Posts: 3737
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by Rupert » Thu May 03, 2018 12:42 pm

CULater wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 10:45 am
If you really want to avoid major bugs, you should probably be buying a model near the end of it's lifespan.
+1. So, OP, buy a 2018 Rav4. While I agree with other posters that's it's a rather boring car and that the interior is just meh, it's being completely redesigned for 2019. I suspect that's why Toyota is offering 0% financing and a cash incentive on 2018s right now. You will not find any incentives or financing offers for CR-Vs. Honda doesn't need to beg people to buy those, the oil and CVT issues notwithstanding.

Not everyone wants their car to be "the ultimate driving machine." Some people really do just want a boring, safe car that gets them reliably from point A to point B.

CULater
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:59 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by CULater » Thu May 03, 2018 1:08 pm

Rupert wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 12:42 pm
CULater wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 10:45 am
If you really want to avoid major bugs, you should probably be buying a model near the end of it's lifespan.
+1. So, OP, buy a 2018 Rav4. While I agree with other posters that's it's a rather boring car and that the interior is just meh, it's being completely redesigned for 2019. I suspect that's why Toyota is offering 0% financing and a cash incentive on 2018s right now. You will not find any incentives or financing offers for CR-Vs. Honda doesn't need to beg people to buy those, the oil and CVT issues notwithstanding.

Not everyone wants their car to be "the ultimate driving machine." Some people really do just want a boring, safe car that gets them reliably from point A to point B.
Another one I'd consider is the 2018 Acura RDX, if you can handle the funky dual-screen infotainment system, no CarPlay or android auto, and a few other anomalies. I followed this one for years as a potential buyer and each re-issue had one glitch or another but they finally got most of it straightened out. Has a V-6 engine and no turbo. There have been complaints about their cylinder deactivation system over the years. The new ones are just coming out with a turbo-4. Based on my experience I'd avoid those like the plague and risk the cylinder deactivation.
May you have the hindsight to know where you've been, The foresight to know where you're going, And the insight to know when you've gone too far. ~ Irish Blessing

User avatar
munemaker
Posts: 3524
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:14 pm

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by munemaker » Thu May 03, 2018 1:13 pm

craimund wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:00 am

JD Power shows Buick and Chevrolet with better reliability than Honda and Toyota. Some people here won't accept that an American car can be more reliable than a foreign made car.
Some people here won't accept JD Power as a measure of reliability. I am one of them.

I would love to buy a Buick or a Chevrolet if they made competitive, quality vehicles. They don't currently. Maybe in the future. When I think of GM cars, the song "Won't Get Fooled Again" comes to mind.

CULater
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:59 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by CULater » Fri May 04, 2018 10:55 am

I just ran across this information about the Mazda CX-5. Crossing it off my list. This is the first time cylinder deactivation has been tried in the North American market. It's not an easy thing to get right -- just ask Honda, they've had many problems with it on the V-6. Adds maybe 1 mpg -- why the heck do you want to do this on a little 4 banger in the first place? I'd want to wait awhile and not become a beta-tester for this technology.
Just nine months after a complete redesign, Mazda’s small crossover receives some additional updates. The biggest change coming to the 2018 Mazda CX-5 is cylinder deactivation technology that comes standard on all models.

At cruising speeds, the engine shuts off two of its four cylinders to increase efficiency. While it’s a common feature overall, Mazda says it’s the only automaker in North America to employ cylinder deactivation on a four-cylinder. The updated Mazda6 also receives this technology.
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2018-maz ... ctivation/
May you have the hindsight to know where you've been, The foresight to know where you're going, And the insight to know when you've gone too far. ~ Irish Blessing

grok87
Posts: 8454
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:00 pm

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by grok87 » Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:37 am

Rupert wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:40 pm
Mazda CX-5, Toyota Rav4, Subaru Forrester, Hyundai Tucson & Santa Fe Sport (the Santa Fe Sport is smaller than the mid-size Santa Fe), Ford Escape, Nissan Rogue

Toyota is offering 0% financing plus a cash incentive right now on the Rav4 if you're in the market for a new, as opposed to new to you, one.
i just drove the a 2018 hyundai tucson 1200 miles as a rental and was very happy with it. the acceleration was a little weak getting up to speed on the highway. everything else was great. i'm not in the market for a car right now but would consider buying one next time i am...
cheers,
grok
Keep calm and Boglehead on. KCBO.

michaeljc70
Posts: 3746
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by michaeljc70 » Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:10 am

I'm very happy with my CX-5. The RAV4 is ugly to me. The CX-5 drove a lot better than the Santa Fe/Tuscon IMO. Everyone has the CR-V (which might not bother many people).

sfchris
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:41 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by sfchris » Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:14 am

We got the 2018 CR-V. Very nice, except the real world city mileage is no more than 20 mpg. This tank we are averaging 19 mpg! I did some research and it looks like the difference between highway and city real world mpg on this thing is massive.

Also the center console slides when you rest your elbow on it. Small design defect but very annoying. :(

CULater
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:59 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by CULater » Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:23 am

sfchris wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:14 am
We got the 2018 CR-V. Very nice, except the real world city mileage is no more than 20 mpg. This tank we are averaging 19 mpg! I did some research and it looks like the difference between highway and city real world mpg on this thing is massive.

Also the center console slides when you rest your elbow on it. Small design defect but very annoying. :(
Could be that half the fuel is going into the oil crankcase. :oops:
May you have the hindsight to know where you've been, The foresight to know where you're going, And the insight to know when you've gone too far. ~ Irish Blessing

User avatar
bru
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by bru » Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:14 pm

I own a 2002 CR-V and previously had an '89 Accord. I keep my vehicles a long time. I'm also a HMC shareholder. When it was time to purchase a sedan several years ago I bought a Hyundai. It (somewhat) pains me to say it but Hyundai and Kia are now where Honda and Toyota were in the 70's and 80's. I would recommend a Hyundai Tuscon or Santa Fe or a Kia Sportage or Sorrento. The Hyundai Kona and Kia Niro should also be considered if you can get away with smaller.

daveydoo
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 1:53 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by daveydoo » Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:21 pm

michaeljc70 wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:10 am
I'm very happy with my CX-5. The RAV4 is ugly to me. The CX-5 drove a lot better than the Santa Fe/Tuscon IMO. Everyone has the CR-V (which might not bother many people).
+1. (Is this thread still going?) Our CX-5 has capable AWD, sensible layout, good tech, good visibility, and is genuinely fun to drive. I would buy it even if everyone else drove it.
"I mean, it's one banana, Michael...what could it cost? Ten dollars?"

sambb
Posts: 2164
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:31 pm

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by sambb » Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:12 am

macan

michaeljc70
Posts: 3746
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by michaeljc70 » Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:02 am

daveydoo wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:21 pm
michaeljc70 wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:10 am
I'm very happy with my CX-5. The RAV4 is ugly to me. The CX-5 drove a lot better than the Santa Fe/Tuscon IMO. Everyone has the CR-V (which might not bother many people).
+1. (Is this thread still going?) Our CX-5 has capable AWD, sensible layout, good tech, good visibility, and is genuinely fun to drive. I would buy it even if everyone else drove it.
Though when I first got mine (2015), there weren't many around, I see them everywhere now. I read Mazda sells more CX-5s than all their other vehicles combined. The reviews have been very favorable.

User avatar
RootSki
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:52 am

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by RootSki » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:01 pm

Volvo XC40 or XC60. I do realize this is a different class of vehicles, but the technology packages on the new Volvo’s is amazing.

UpperNwGuy
Posts: 1133
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: If you really like the CR-V, you should check out the [_____]

Post by UpperNwGuy » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:28 pm

I'll soon be in the market for a compact SUV, and one daughter and her husband drive a Suburu Outback and keep recommending that I get the Suburu Forester. I'm surprised the Forester hasn't been mentioned more often in this thread. I'm a bit worried, however, by stories of oil burning and CVT failures.

My other daughter is the proud owner of a new Honda CRV, so of course she recommends that. However, it's off my list until Honda acknowledges and fixes the gas-in-the-crankcase problem.

Post Reply