Motor Trend Picks 2015 Honda CR-V as SUV OTY

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apparently Honda was so impressed with the results of their 2014 revision of the CRV that they felt a 2015 revision was needed...

One year's worth of specific parts availability, etc. I can hear it now: "Oh, you wanted the (fill in the blanks) for the 2014 CRV... Sorry, but those are no longer available."

Ha, ha! (as in The Simpsons)

p.s. My 2014 Outback's CVT doesn't make the "fake" shifts that Motor Trend refers to. I also found it interesting that there were three versions (including prices and spec's) for the X5 BMW but they only show data for the 3.6l version of the Outback, saying they preferred the 2.5l version. Pretty much a popularity contest, IMHO.
 
Originally Posted By: bepperb
Hard to take people seriously who say some other vehicle is better than the CRV when no one here has driven the new model... funny to read though. Seriously, can people at least wait to see something in person before having an opinion of it (or at least until they share it).


What has me looking forward to it is their apparent return to a more sport-oriented chassis. I've driven a few 2012+ models and I feel they got away from the "spunk" that the 2007-2011 generation had. The 2012-2014 is certainly a comfortable vehicle, but it lost some of its handling bite. It appears that Honda may have returned to that with the 2015 model. I look forward to driving one.
 
Originally Posted By: BearZDefect
Originally Posted By: itguy08
How is it when Nissan, Ford, Subaru (I think Subie) programs their CVT's to hold revs and let the car accelerate, it's berated for rubber band feel and annoying...

I haven't criticized any CVT for holding a steady RPM when given a steady go pedal input.


Wasn't aiming at you but seems to be that most mags/writers hate the CVT in nearly all applications. Yet when Honda does it, it's the best thing since sliced bread! FWIW I've had plenty of rides in a 13 Accord. The CVT seems to be about the same I remembered from the Nissan. A perfectly adequate car. Nothing special or offensive about it.
 
Originally Posted By: Norm Olt
Apparently Honda was so impressed with the results of their 2014 revision of the CRV that they felt a 2015 revision was needed...

One year's worth of specific parts availability, etc. I can hear it now: "Oh, you wanted the (fill in the blanks) for the 2014 CRV... Sorry, but those are no longer available."

Ha, ha! (as in The Simpsons)

p.s. My 2014 Outback's CVT doesn't make the "fake" shifts that Motor Trend refers to. I also found it interesting that there were three versions (including prices and spec's) for the X5 BMW but they only show data for the 3.6l version of the Outback, saying they preferred the 2.5l version. Pretty much a popularity contest, IMHO.


Honda has had a lot of these one year screw ups now, huh?

Fake ratios in a cvt is about the stupidest thing I've seen.
 
It's been three years since Honda did anything significant with the CR-V. 2012 was the start of the 4th generation, and the 2015 is its mid-cycle facelift.

I'm sure there were some odds-and-ends changes for 2014 (like the addition of new colors), but 2014 is not a one-year-only design.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Meh. I'd go Forester easily over a CRV. CX5 is up there too, but hard to deny Subie's AWD and good MPG now.

Probably not the most valid comment considering you haven't tried the new version with all of the updates.
 
Originally Posted By: Norm Olt
Apparently Honda was so impressed with the results of their 2014 revision of the CRV that they felt a 2015 revision was needed...

One year's worth of specific parts availability, etc. I can hear it now: "Oh, you wanted the (fill in the blanks) for the 2014 CRV... Sorry, but those are no longer available."

Ha, ha! (as in The Simpsons)

p.s. My 2014 Outback's CVT doesn't make the "fake" shifts that Motor Trend refers to. I also found it interesting that there were three versions (including prices and spec's) for the X5 BMW but they only show data for the 3.6l version of the Outback, saying they preferred the 2.5l version. Pretty much a popularity contest, IMHO.

It would be absolutely fantastic if you could back that up and tell us what the 2014 revisions were. Nevermind, we'll be waiting forever for that so I'll just leave this here from Honda PR:

"2014 CR-V
CARRYOVER
On sale: Summer

The CR-V finished 2012 calendar year as the best-selling SUV and remains one of the top selling models in the U.S."

That's the same for 2013, by the way. It's funny the stuff people come up with to try and take shots at Honda.
 
Last edited:
Ford, jeep use nissan cvts. Subaru's are made by nissan. That has been my experience; the revs are all over.


Originally Posted By: BearZDefect
Originally Posted By: itguy08
How is it when Nissan, Ford, Subaru (I think Subie) programs their CVT's to hold revs and let the car accelerate, it's berated for rubber band feel and annoying...

I haven't criticized any CVT for holding a steady RPM when given a steady go pedal input.

When I test drove Nissan Altima and Rogue in recent years, they were very inconsistent with engine RPM - it would flare up to 3,000 RPM at light throttle for no good reason. Then other times it would flare up over 2,000 RPM then grunt down to 1,100 RPM for no good reason.

The Subarus I test drove last year all changed RPM at steady throttle input.

I haven't driven a Honda CVT, so my comment was only about MT's comment, not first hand experience.

I'd guess the Nissan nuisances I noticed were poor handling of TCC engagement.

But I still have to laugh at CVT programming that fakes the shifting pattern of a conventional 6 speed, for example.

And on the subject of a CR-V, when I test drove a 2013 over a year ago, I found it very disppointing. So I have no praise for the CR-V unless I test drive a new one and find it much better.
 
Since I'm clearing things up here: Ford and Jeep use Jatco CVTs. It was spun off from Nissan many years ago but I don't believe it's affiliated anymore (they happen to be the largest supplier). Subaru uses Aisin CVTs. Honda developed and manufactures their own.
 
Originally Posted By: VNTS
Mall Rated CUV/Civic wagon, but SUV too funny LOL

+1 That cracker box is no SUV its a toy wannabe. This is an SUV, wonder how long a slide and drive tranny would hold up in this. LOL
GMC-Yukon-XL-Denali-2006.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: VNTS
Mall Rated CUV/Civic wagon, but SUV too funny LOL

+1 That cracker box is no SUV its a toy wannabe. This is an SUV, wonder how long a slide and drive tranny would hold up in this. LOL
GMC-Yukon-XL-Denali-2006.jpg



Full time AWD with no low range? I wouldn't call that a real SUV.

"SUV" is a relative term/moving target. How are we defining it? Frame vs Unibody? 4wd w/ low range vs AWD? Size? Engine configuration?
 
Originally Posted By: BowNisPar
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: VNTS
Mall Rated CUV/Civic wagon, but SUV too funny LOL

+1 That cracker box is no SUV its a toy wannabe. This is an SUV, wonder how long a slide and drive tranny would hold up in this. LOL
GMC-Yukon-XL-Denali-2006.jpg



Full time AWD with no low range? I wouldn't call that a real SUV.

"SUV" is a relative term/moving target. How are we defining it? Frame vs Unibody? 4wd w/ low range vs AWD? Size? Engine configuration?


I have 4WD low range AND solid axles ... but unibody.

What does that mean?
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: BowNisPar
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: VNTS
Mall Rated CUV/Civic wagon, but SUV too funny LOL

+1 That cracker box is no SUV its a toy wannabe. This is an SUV, wonder how long a slide and drive tranny would hold up in this. LOL
GMC-Yukon-XL-Denali-2006.jpg



Full time AWD with no low range? I wouldn't call that a real SUV.

"SUV" is a relative term/moving target. How are we defining it? Frame vs Unibody? 4wd w/ low range vs AWD? Size? Engine configuration?


I have 4WD low range AND solid axles ... but unibody.

What does that mean?


There is just no telling.
 
Originally Posted By: BowNisPar
Full time AWD with no low range? I wouldn't call that a real SUV.


The formula is well established.

Quote:
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a "sport utility vehicle" is "a rugged automotive vehicle similar to a station wagon but built on a light-truck chassis".[1] The "SUV" term is defined as "a large vehicle that is designed to be used on rough surfaces but that is often used on city roads or highways.


Quote:
It's All About Platform

For many car experts, the difference between the two is simple: A crossover is based on a car's platform, while an SUV uses the chassis of a truck. The result is that crossovers use "unibody" architecture, meaning the body and frame are one piece, while SUVs use a "body on frame" design. In that case, the body is built separately from the frame and placed together later.


http://www.autotrader.com/research/artic...-difference.jsp
 
Originally Posted By: BowNisPar
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: VNTS
Mall Rated CUV/Civic wagon, but SUV too funny LOL

+1 That cracker box is no SUV its a toy wannabe. This is an SUV, wonder how long a slide and drive tranny would hold up in this. LOL
GMC-Yukon-XL-Denali-2006.jpg



Full time AWD with no low range? I wouldn't call that a real SUV.

"SUV" is a relative term/moving target. How are we defining it? Frame vs Unibody? 4wd w/ low range vs AWD? Size? Engine configuration?


It doesn't come anymore full size SUV than that, except for maybe an Excursion, which was commonly called a Land Yacht.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: BowNisPar
Full time AWD with no low range? I wouldn't call that a real SUV.


The formula is well established.

Quote:
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a "sport utility vehicle" is "a rugged automotive vehicle similar to a station wagon but built on a light-truck chassis".[1] The "SUV" term is defined as "a large vehicle that is designed to be used on rough surfaces but that is often used on city roads or highways.


Quote:
It's All About Platform

For many car experts, the difference between the two is simple: A crossover is based on a car's platform, while an SUV uses the chassis of a truck. The result is that crossovers use "unibody" architecture, meaning the body and frame are one piece, while SUVs use a "body on frame" design. In that case, the body is built separately from the frame and placed together later.


http://www.autotrader.com/research/artic...-difference.jsp


I too can use wikipedia. There are many different types of Sport Utility Vehicles, and the formula is far from "well established". That Denali isn't designed for rough terrain, regardless of its chassis. XJ Cherokees are unibody, not on a "truck chassis", and are definitely an SUV. The entire argument is stupid, anyways. A Caprice wagon is closer to an "SUV" than most of the offerings on the market today.

From wiki:

There is no one definition for an SUV.[4] Most government regulations simply have categories for "off-highway vehicles," which in turn are lumped in with pickup trucks and minivans as "light trucks."[4] The auto industry has not settled on one definition.[4]


For anyone interested, the wikipedia entry is listed below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_utility_vehicle
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
It's been three years since Honda did anything significant with the CR-V. 2012 was the start of the 4th generation, and the 2015 is its mid-cycle facelift.

I'm sure there were some odds-and-ends changes for 2014 (like the addition of new colors), but 2014 is not a one-year-only design.


Yeah but I seem to recall a civic being completely redone after a year on the market because it was so poor/poorly received.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top