Honda CRV
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: buster
CRV vs Forester vs Jeep Liberty with the 3.7L. Those are the 3 vehicles I'm considering.
I'm not going for any serious off-roading. Just beach/snow. All 3 will do well in that with the right tires.
One note...if you get a CRV. Have it undercoated if you are in road salt territory.
CRV vs Forester vs Jeep Liberty with the 3.7L. Those are the 3 vehicles I'm considering.
I'm not going for any serious off-roading. Just beach/snow. All 3 will do well in that with the right tires.
One note...if you get a CRV. Have it undercoated if you are in road salt territory.
MIL has a 2001 first gen and i've worked on it. already been said about watching the valves. I would snatch one up in a heartbeat, and they are significantly cheaper than a second gen. road noise is very high, but good tires can help and extra insulation.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Some part of me, however, wants to get a 5M 1st generation CR-V and put AT tires on it and have a little camping/kayak rig.
I think the only issue really with this is 1st isn't low enough to do any technical trails without killing your clutch.
My Tracker has a very low 1st then a low range in the transfer case and at idle it still moves a bit fast for picking your way around and over the rocks.
My parents had a 98 CRV with the auto and it is was fine for a bit of technical terrain though, and we pulled some logs around with it in the snow. It was a good vehicle overall.
Some part of me, however, wants to get a 5M 1st generation CR-V and put AT tires on it and have a little camping/kayak rig.
I think the only issue really with this is 1st isn't low enough to do any technical trails without killing your clutch.
My Tracker has a very low 1st then a low range in the transfer case and at idle it still moves a bit fast for picking your way around and over the rocks.
My parents had a 98 CRV with the auto and it is was fine for a bit of technical terrain though, and we pulled some logs around with it in the snow. It was a good vehicle overall.
Quote:
Perhaps the most groundbreaking aspect of the Jeep Liberty has been its strong reliability ratings; for decades, Jeeps and other off-roaders faired poorly in reliability surveys, with Jeep known for durability (resistance to shocks and abuse) but not long-term freedom from mechanical failures. (To be fair, many off-road-ready vehicles have had this issue - most quality surveys feature the Hummer H1 firmly at the bottom, followed in low-quality ranking by Land Rovers and Range Rovers.) But the Liberty has stuck firmly to the tops of the charts
Perhaps the most groundbreaking aspect of the Jeep Liberty has been its strong reliability ratings; for decades, Jeeps and other off-roaders faired poorly in reliability surveys, with Jeep known for durability (resistance to shocks and abuse) but not long-term freedom from mechanical failures. (To be fair, many off-road-ready vehicles have had this issue - most quality surveys feature the Hummer H1 firmly at the bottom, followed in low-quality ranking by Land Rovers and Range Rovers.) But the Liberty has stuck firmly to the tops of the charts
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I think the only issue really with this is 1st isn't low enough to do any technical trails without killing your clutch.
That would be an issue if I were wanting to do technical trails. All I'd be using it for is a camping vehicle and to get the kayak to the back side of the lake. If I had any plans to do anything that resembled "trails", I'd get an automatic at the minimum...but a CR-V wouldn't be high on my list anyway for that type of duty anyway.
I think the only issue really with this is 1st isn't low enough to do any technical trails without killing your clutch.
That would be an issue if I were wanting to do technical trails. All I'd be using it for is a camping vehicle and to get the kayak to the back side of the lake. If I had any plans to do anything that resembled "trails", I'd get an automatic at the minimum...but a CR-V wouldn't be high on my list anyway for that type of duty anyway.
Originally Posted By: buster
Hokiefyd, the way you have yours set up is really nice. It looks like that would handle sand/snow really well with those tires.
I'm sure it would, but if you're talking about those 1st gen pictures I posted, note that those aren't my vehicles; those are pictures of what I'd like to have if I bought a 1st gen. Sorry for the confusion on that.
You can get very inexpensive lift kits for 1st gen CR-Vs that allow you to install slightly taller tires. These do just fine in snow as they are, but with extra clearance and BFG A/T KOs, it'd do extremely well.
Hokiefyd, the way you have yours set up is really nice. It looks like that would handle sand/snow really well with those tires.
I'm sure it would, but if you're talking about those 1st gen pictures I posted, note that those aren't my vehicles; those are pictures of what I'd like to have if I bought a 1st gen. Sorry for the confusion on that.
You can get very inexpensive lift kits for 1st gen CR-Vs that allow you to install slightly taller tires. These do just fine in snow as they are, but with extra clearance and BFG A/T KOs, it'd do extremely well.
You can get the Liberty with the 5 spd stick if you want the older ones.
If you want a real 4wd with transfer case and low range, the jeep would be the way to go.
Also the first year Liberty had the 545RFe instead of the 42RE.
Originally Posted By: buster
CRV vs Forester vs Jeep Liberty with the 3.7L. Those are the 3 vehicles I'm considering.
I'm not going for any serious off-roading. Just beach/snow. All 3 will do well in that with the right tires.
If you want a real 4wd with transfer case and low range, the jeep would be the way to go.
Also the first year Liberty had the 545RFe instead of the 42RE.
Originally Posted By: buster
CRV vs Forester vs Jeep Liberty with the 3.7L. Those are the 3 vehicles I'm considering.
I'm not going for any serious off-roading. Just beach/snow. All 3 will do well in that with the right tires.
I'd like to get in on the discussion, as I am also looking to get into a Gen 1 by fall.
My question is MPG. In all the vehicles I've researched, I've NEVER read more discrepancies on true MPG. I've read 30 HWY; I've read 24 HWY max.
If driven gently, is a maintained Gen 1 CRV capable of 27-28 mpg during the warmer months in the midwest?
My question is MPG. In all the vehicles I've researched, I've NEVER read more discrepancies on true MPG. I've read 30 HWY; I've read 24 HWY max.
If driven gently, is a maintained Gen 1 CRV capable of 27-28 mpg during the warmer months in the midwest?
Part of the big differences in mileage are not all CRVs are AWD and not all are automatics. Some FWD manuals claim to get 30 highway. I think the best I got (AWD auto) was 29 but that was all interstate in weather that was not cold, but I didn't have the ac on. I drive pretty relaxed and I could usually hit 26 mpg in the summer consistently.
ref
ref
Originally Posted By: badtlc
AWD, Auto and 70mph is going to get you 24 MPG. As you vary from that, MPGs will go up or down.
That's exactly what I used to average. Best I ever saw on a tank was 26.8 with a big swath of driving on a 60 mph highway in flat south Louisiana. I'm chasing down a drop in mpg at the moment, though. Either that or I need to recalculate consumption by hand. Scanguage is showing me on the low side, though...
AWD, Auto and 70mph is going to get you 24 MPG. As you vary from that, MPGs will go up or down.
That's exactly what I used to average. Best I ever saw on a tank was 26.8 with a big swath of driving on a 60 mph highway in flat south Louisiana. I'm chasing down a drop in mpg at the moment, though. Either that or I need to recalculate consumption by hand. Scanguage is showing me on the low side, though...
IIRC they made a change in '08 or so, where it reacts faster. But yes, it was predominately FWD, reacting to wheelspin.
From what I understand, while you could think of it as a center diff, the traditional 4x4 terms don't apply, at least on the RAV4. On that setup, the driveshaft going to the rear is powered always--think of the transmission output going through a locked center diff to both front and rear diffs. Then, in the rear diff, a variable clutch is used to apply power to the rear wheels, in a linear fashion.
So, AFAIK these setups really only use two differentials: the front diff, and a complex rear diff which uses a linear clutch of some sort to apply a varying amount of power to the rear wheels. [This linear clutch is what also prevents drivetrain binding on dry pavement, as it is never reaches full lockup.] Depending upon how you want to look at it, there is no center diff; or it is buried inside the transaxle, and is basically always locked.
Something else I found somewhat interesting was that, on at least some of the setups, the front and rear diffs us dissimilar gear ratios. Weird. The rear driveshaft is spun at a different speed relative to the non-existant front drive shaft; and the rear diff is sized to accomodate that. I think they slow down the rear driveshaft, probably to increase mpg and/or reduce vibrations.
From what I understand, while you could think of it as a center diff, the traditional 4x4 terms don't apply, at least on the RAV4. On that setup, the driveshaft going to the rear is powered always--think of the transmission output going through a locked center diff to both front and rear diffs. Then, in the rear diff, a variable clutch is used to apply power to the rear wheels, in a linear fashion.
So, AFAIK these setups really only use two differentials: the front diff, and a complex rear diff which uses a linear clutch of some sort to apply a varying amount of power to the rear wheels. [This linear clutch is what also prevents drivetrain binding on dry pavement, as it is never reaches full lockup.] Depending upon how you want to look at it, there is no center diff; or it is buried inside the transaxle, and is basically always locked.
Something else I found somewhat interesting was that, on at least some of the setups, the front and rear diffs us dissimilar gear ratios. Weird. The rear driveshaft is spun at a different speed relative to the non-existant front drive shaft; and the rear diff is sized to accomodate that. I think they slow down the rear driveshaft, probably to increase mpg and/or reduce vibrations.
Right, the CR-V's system is completely mechanical/hydraulic based on wheel slippage. I want to say it debuted on one of those weird jacked-up Civic wagon thingys back in the 80's. I'll say this, though, it's always provided me with secure driving on muddy/gravelly roads, downpours, and the VERY RARE snows we have down here. I tried to cross shop the Forester when I bought my CR-V but a.) the dealer was a &*$%. b.) my wife told me she didn't want to look like Martina Navratilova.
Here's Honda's explanation as to how RT4WD works:
http://thehondaportal.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-honda-realtime-4-wheel-drive-works.html
Here's Honda's explanation as to how RT4WD works:
http://thehondaportal.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-honda-realtime-4-wheel-drive-works.html
- Status
