CR-V AWD during a snow storm. Tell us stories...

[CharBaby]

No particular story here just adding my .02cents.

I know lots of folks with CR-V's and I have driven many of them myself but, don't own one. I have also driven many other small SUV/CUV in the CR-V's class.

Although there are some smaller SUV/CUV's that I like driving better than the CR-V, those whom I know, just love their CR-V regardless of the year.

This says something about the long term ownership of the CR-V

 

[Falken]

Thanks guys, I will be getting a 2013 AWD CR-V in the Spring based on the positive posts.

We may sell the Honda Fit and keep the 2010 Mazda 3 hatchback as the Honda Fit wont loose any money on a private resale.

We would have kept the Honda Fit and sold the Mazda but the resale would be in the heavy loss territory compared to the Fit.

Kind of sucks because the family enjoys the Fit much more. Also, the Fit doesn't stand to rust out like the Mazda might.

Our beloved Honda Fit is also made in Japan before the Tsunami. Someone will be very happy to take it off of our hands and we will be very sad to let it go. They will be getting an awesome car that was only fed a steady diet of synthetics and yearly DW-1 trans drain & fills, fresh brake fluid, air filters, and they will be getting an immaculate service record book.

We just can't juggle three cars, it is just too much work and insurance. We will try to sell the Mazda before the spring for an amount that we can tolerate to let it go for, hoping we can keep the Fit. Two Hondas in the drive won't bother us much.

Again thanks for the input!

 

[CharBaby]

The new 2013 CR-V scored tops with families amongst several small SUV's on Motor Week Online. There is a nice video on the MW site that will tell you more of what folks liked best as well as the other contenders.

In other MW videos, other Honda's took top honors in their respective class such at the midsize sedan(Accord), minivan(Oddyssey) and IIRC, compact car/wagon(FIT). I don't know how well the Civic or the Pilot did!

Honda can still make some very good vehicles.

 

[Thermo1223]

Well I hope it works out for you. I don't trust Honda's version of AWD.

I've seen in my area countless CRV's wildly spinning their front tires with rears barely clicking along. Now this does not account for tires I'll admit.

I have become a Subaru fan ever since I drove my first one and watched it just tear through 1-2 ft and about 2-3 inches of hard packed snow/ice. Audi's(non haldex) and older non-haldex VW's I would also reccomend. BMW's system is gear driven or at least it was with a more rear bias trq split. I think MB might has been as well.

I also drove an Envoy for a while with real truck based 4WD. I never liked using the auto function, seemed very clunky. I ran it in 2WD unless bad weather occurred.

So if you like the CRV for other reasons then great but I would not count on their AWD to save my life, literally.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
I've seen in my area countless CRV's wildly spinning their front tires with rears barely clicking along. Now this does not account for tires I'll admit.


With the CR-V's system, tire condition shouldn't matter. All that matters is the difference in speed between the front axle (which is sent to the rear unit via the propeller shaft) and the rear axle. The propeller shaft drives a pump and the rear differential's pinion shaft drives a pump. The difference in speed generates fluid pressure which engages the wet clutches.

If the front tires were spinning and one rear tire was not, it's possible that the other rear tire was spinning, as it's an open differential in the back. If neither of the rear tires was spinning, then it either wasn't an AWD CR-V or there was a problem with the rear unit, which, though improbable, is not impossible.

 

[JHZR2]

Just did over 700 miles through the blizzard in a 2011 CRV. It was adequate.

Traction on hills, highways and curves (think rte 100 in VT) was sufficient, though it did like to slide a bit on a few curves. But what else would one expect?

Either the traction control system really burned the brakes,or the awd system really burned the clutches, as the car STUNK after the drive up there (350 miles or so total, but the last 50 or so was where there were lots of curves and low speed hills).

Is it a real awd/4wd system? no. its a civic or an accord with some ability to put power to the back. But it is enough to get the job done under most conditions, IMO.

Ill personally take a FWD car with snows and save the MPG penalty and driveline hassle.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Char Baby
The new 2013 CR-V scored tops with families amongst several small SUV's on Motor Week Online. There is a nice video on the MW site that will tell you more of what folks liked best as well as the other contenders.



Our friends have a 2011, and the new model is a step backwards, IOO.

 

[Thermo1223]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
I've seen in my area countless CRV's wildly spinning their front tires with rears barely clicking along. Now this does not account for tires I'll admit.


With the CR-V's system, tire condition shouldn't matter. All that matters is the difference in speed between the front axle (which is sent to the rear unit via the propeller shaft) and the rear axle. The propeller shaft drives a pump and the rear differential's pinion shaft drives a pump. The difference in speed generates fluid pressure which engages the wet clutches.

If the front tires were spinning and one rear tire was not, it's possible that the other rear tire was spinning, as it's an open differential in the back. If neither of the rear tires was spinning, then it either wasn't an AWD CR-V or there was a problem with the rear unit, which, though improbable, is not impossible.


That is certainly plausible but it begs the questions why not brake the wildly spinning tire(s) to get some form of traction.

If it was FWD I wouldn't bother mentioning it. I always look for a rear diff and associated markings.

Even some form of limited slip in that setup would prove useful too a point. My first Forester had no help. It only had LSD in the rear and like your MDX would fishtail if you gave it the beans. So it required more management than or current Forester which pretty much keeps you where ever the wheel is pointed.

Edit:

I agree with JHZR2 to a point, all things being equal I did fine with FWD and snow tires in my youth. AWD allows me to be...lazy about tires to a point.(not dumb though) It certainly is fun 4 wheel drifting in empty lots though!

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
I've seen in my area countless CRV's wildly spinning their front tires with rears barely clicking along. Now this does not account for tires I'll admit.


With the CR-V's system, tire condition shouldn't matter. All that matters is the difference in speed between the front axle (which is sent to the rear unit via the propeller shaft) and the rear axle. The propeller shaft drives a pump and the rear differential's pinion shaft drives a pump. The difference in speed generates fluid pressure which engages the wet clutches.

If the front tires were spinning and one rear tire was not, it's possible that the other rear tire was spinning, as it's an open differential in the back. If neither of the rear tires was spinning, then it either wasn't an AWD CR-V or there was a problem with the rear unit, which, though improbable, is not impossible.



I'd be willing to bet Honda limits the amount of torque transferred to the rear as most other primarily FWD cars do with their RWD add on.

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

I'd be willing to bet Honda limits the amount of torque transferred to the rear as most other primarily FWD cars do with their RWD add on.


I wonder too. I have Honda's extension of the CRV system called SH-AWD and it runs around 90/10 in normal driving.

However if conditions dictate it or grade logic kicks in it can transfer 70% of power to rear wheels. To help cornering and keeping vehicle on track 100% torque can be sent to either rear wheel.

That all being said my wife's simple Subaru AWD with 45/55 split and no electronics or traction control and rear LSD just motors through though deep snow or mud. The Acura gets overwhelmed just like the CRV seems to.

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

Ill personally take a FWD car with snows and save the MPG penalty and driveline hassle.


The MPG penalty in modern AWD systems is neglible. The CRV has 1 MPG loss between FWD and AWD. I believe most car makers this is similiar with a 1-2MPG loss. Agree on complexity although I have not really heard of very many failures of the Honda system.

 

[supton]

That's AWD vs FWD on a platform designed to be either. Lots of FWD-only cars blow past 30mpg. If you give up the AWD and SUV requirements, and go sedan, you can get near 40mpg. [What does the Fit return? mid 30's?]

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
That is certainly plausible but it begs the questions why not brake the wildly spinning tire(s) to get some form of traction.


They certainly could have. I'm not even sure that the VSA does NOT apply brake to a spinning rear wheel either. You said that the ones you observed had "wildly spinning" front wheels. If that were the case, the driver had the VSA system turned off, allowing that wheel spin. If the system were on, would it also have modulated the rear wheels? I'm actually not sure of the answer to that question.

As mentioned by others, the AWD systems on these vehicles are not intended to bear full engine torque all the time. They're light duty (and light weight) systems to be used as supplements only. Bearing evidence of that is the EPA fuel economy estimate; our 2008 AWD CR-V is rated 20/26, but the FWD version is rated 20/27. So you don't really lose much, if anything at all.

An AWD CR-V will drift quite well in a snowy parking lot. I wish I had some snow to try mine out.

 

[Falken]

I read the posts about the AWD system.

Maybe I'll skip the AWD and for the money go up a trim FWD.

Also, we love the Fit as on the highway I easily get over 40 MPG.

If I baby it on the highway I have gotten very close to the Holy Grail of 50 MPG.

This is if I just start counting fuel consumption when I am already up to speed on the highway going in a straight line and not changing lanes constantly.

Doing 110km per hour I am impressed how little fuel the car uses.

The reason to get a CR-V is to deal with driving in deeper snow to do some hunting in the Winter and camping in the Summer.

Also, if we visit family in NDG they don't clear the snow for a long time.

It is just a piece of mind vehicle. Beefier in a collision, still reasonable on gas, more storage, roomier and comfier.

But, we have mandatory snow tires in Quebec. So maybe the added ground clearance with snows and being able to go up in trim level for the same price but to forgo an iffy AWD system may be more sensible.

Thanks a lot for the help guys, picking an SUV is much harder than picking a car that's for sure.

 

[Thermo1223]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
That is certainly plausible but it begs the questions why not brake the wildly spinning tire(s) to get some form of traction.


They certainly could have. I'm not even sure that the VSA does NOT apply brake to a spinning rear wheel either. You said that the ones you observed had "wildly spinning" front wheels. If that were the case, the driver had the VSA system turned off, allowing that wheel spin. If the system were on, would it also have modulated the rear wheels? I'm actually not sure of the answer to that question.

As mentioned by others, the AWD systems on these vehicles are not intended to bear full engine torque all the time. They're light duty (and light weight) systems to be used as supplements only. Bearing evidence of that is the EPA fuel economy estimate; our 2008 AWD CR-V is rated 20/26, but the FWD version is rated 20/27. So you don't really lose much, if anything at all.

An AWD CR-V will drift quite well in a snowy parking lot. I wish I had some snow to try mine out.



See I never saw it on that body style, it was always the gen before. The more boxy looking. I believe the first & second gen. So maybe that is where the problem lies, as it seems the 3rd certainly does not seem to have a problem sending power rear.

 

[surfstar]

Looked into a Forester or Outback at all?
Seems like they'd be the best for winter traction. Too many decisions for sure - good luck!

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
Looked into a Forester or Outback at all?
Seems like they'd be the best for winter traction. Too many decisions for sure - good luck!



They are the in a different tier for winter and off road traction against competitors in the affordable price range. Subaru for 2014 is adding an off road mode for awd beyond class leading mpg.

That being said you have to like the vehicle and crv wins for most folks year round. Subaru wins in winter conditions.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
See I never saw it on that body style, it was always the gen before. The more boxy looking. I believe the first & second gen. So maybe that is where the problem lies, as it seems the 3rd certainly does not seem to have a problem sending power rear.


Note that for the OP, the 4th generation CR-V (2012 to current) has an electronically-controlled AWD unit, rather than the hydraulic system in the 1st through 3rd generations. So it should do at least as well as any earlier one in terms of engaging the rear tires.

Here's one in some pretty deep snow. Looks like it works pretty well (it was snow-plowing in some spots). As much as I like our mild winters, I'd like at least ONE good snowfall, you know, just to "test the system"!

 

[CharBaby]

I hope that everyone realizes that CR-V's do come in FWD. And if you whitnessed a CR-V spinning it's front tires only and nothing happening in the rear that, this particular CR-V may have been FWD ONLY!

 

[Thermo1223]

I wish I had a good snowfall to play around in...