Picture Gallery: 2007 Honda CR-V EX
Day 1:
 Click Image to Enlarge |
The new CR-V was designed to drive like a car, unlike past CR-V’s, which were designed to be little trucks. I’m sure Honda has done their research and have determined buyers in this particular market (small SUV / CUV market) are looking for vehicles that ride, drive and feel more like a car but offer more versatility for cargo and passengers alike.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
Although my test model came in the desirable EX trim, it isn’t my favourite colour. Known as “Borrego Beige Metalic” I’d describe it simply as old boring beige, but I digress. One thing I did notice is that even on the EX model, the mirrors and door handles are not body coloured.
So what exactly does the CR-V EX come with? Quite a lot actually. Starting from the engine bay, all CR-V’s are equipped with a 166hp 4 cyl engine, mated to a five-speed automatic transmission. Over the LX model, the EX adds Real Time four-wheel drive, power moonroof with tilt feature, 17″ aluminum-alloy wheels and a few smaller items.
As part of Honda’s safety for everyone mantra, the CR-V also includes side airbags, side curtain airbags, ABS brakes with electronic brake force distribution, vehicle stability control, active head restraints and of course, my beloved AUX input jack.
2007 Honda CR-V EX
MSRP as tested: $34,055
For more information on Honda and the CR-V visit Honda Canada
Updated December 19th 2006
Day 2:
 Click Image to Enlarge |
First, the decision by Honda to no longer provide us with a manual transmission in the CR-V: I had the opportunity to talk to a Honda representative about this about a month ago when they launched the CR-V. The simple answer was that not enough manual transmission-equipped CR-V’s were sold in North America to warrant building it for this market.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
On to the “D-pillar”: What can I say about the “D-pillar”? Well… it’s there, it is large and honestly, you will never notice while driving. You certainly can’t crick your neck enough to see back that far - at least I can’t. What this means, in short, it that it is a non-issue. When backing into parking spaces it is a non-issue as well. Now, it might be an issue if someone were to stand directly in the blind spot created by that “D-pillar” while you’re testing whether you can see there, but it is not a driving concern in my opinion.
And last but not least, the foot operated parking brake. How was this an issue exactly? I don’t think I could list the number of vehicles that use a foot operated parking brake within my daily 300 word blog. I’ll leave it at that.
Updated December 20th 2006
Day 3:
 Click Image to Enlarge |
The more I drive the CR-V the more I realize it really does drive like a car, just as Honda says. If you have ever driven a Honda Accord or maybe the new Civic, then you have pretty much driven the CR-V. There is no top-heavy feel on corner entry and it does not feel like you’re going to eat the steering wheel during braking. It really does feel like a car; a Honda car.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
I will agree with this: the four cylinder engine in the CR-V is an excellent engine. Carting just myself around it has no problems, although in typical Honda style, I do find it needs to be wound up a little more than I would like for this type of vehicle. What I’m leery of is if you pack the CR-V with 4 people and fill the rear with luggage or gear for a camping trip, it will struggle, especially on those hilly backroads to the cottage.
The plus side, though, is that this engine is fuel efficient and clean-running (Tier 2 bin 5 compliant). The CR-V is rated by Natural Resources Canada at an efficient 10.7/7.8 (City / Highway). When you compare this to some other vehicles of this size or even many mid-sized sedans, the CR-V is near the top of the heap.
Updated December 21st 2006
Day 4:
 Click Image to Enlarge |
The hatch is extremely easy to open and close - ridiculously easy, and a nice handle on the inside allows you to close it without getting your hands all dirty. The liftgate also means you are shielded from the weather to a certain extent when loading and unloading the vehicle. Personally, I like the lift-gate; everything is just simpler this way.
What I don’t like is the fact that you cannot open the gate with the remote. Okay, I’m being picky, but just unlocking the vehicle doesn’t do it either. You have to hit unlock on the key fob twice to unlock the trunk. I do realize that most (if not all) vehicles use this setup, so let’s call this a rant. The easy-to-lift gate was not so easy to open with my hands full of dry-cleaned garments while I fumbled for the keys - especially after I thought I had already unlocked it from inside the store.
I am very impressed by the fuel consumption of the CR-V. It is one thing for NRCan to rate a vehicle with 10.7L/100km city fuel consumption; it is another to actually achieve better than this figure. I achieved 10.6L/100km over the course of the week, which, in my experience with SUVs and mid-sized sedans and coupled with my driving style and typical route, is exceptional.
In my opinion, besides Honda’s reputation for excellent build quality and fuel efficiency, the CR-V does not stand out as anything spectacular but as a practical and efficient small SUV, it does the job. It is most definitely worth a test drive if you are shopping in this category and who knows: it might win you over!
*Rating out of 5:
| 2007 Honda CR-V EX | |
| Acceleration |  |
| Handling | 
|
| Comfort | |
| Interior |
|
| Audio System | |
| Gas Mileage |
|
*Rating based on vehicle’s classification
2007 Honda CR-V EX
MSRP as tested: $34,055
For more information on Honda and the CR-V visit Honda Canada
December 21, 2006, 04:00:38 pm Why do people compare the CRV to the RAV4 V6? Put the 4cyl Limited against the CRV, and I found that the CRV had the edge in overall driving feel and performance. When it came down to pricing, the V6 was $4500 more over the CRV and I couldn't justify an extra $100/mth for 4yrs.
Truth be told, even if Honda came out with a CRV Type-R with the RDX turbo engine in it, I'm a bigger fan of natural aspiration and would side with the RAV4 V6.
December 21, 2006, 10:24:16 pm Butt ugly front end. The front double-grill looks like a double chin. After owning the first wo CRV models, I'll skip this one and go with the great looking Santa Fe. The only good thing is the new rear hatch.
December 22, 2006, 08:26:12 am People compare the CR-V against the RAV4 V6 because they are priced in the same neighbourhood. The base V6 is $800 less than the CR-V EX, and the Sport with sunroof is $150 more than the EX-L. For those who are interested in the engine it's a fair comparison.
December 22, 2006, 08:59:01 am I think Wing called it out perfectly in his closing remarks on today's entry. The CR-V is what it is, and doesn't pretend to be something that it isn't. Honda faithful will keep this new model on the roads a-plenty.
December 22, 2006, 03:00:08 pm Been driving around the GTA lots this week and I gotta tell ya, seen dozens of these things already.
May have googlie headlights, black door handles, and in some cases steelies, but people are buying them. The 4-cyl likely works just fine and is a non-issue for urbanites.
December 24, 2006, 04:58:05 pm I'm really surprised that no ones calls out the emperor new clothes on this one: the new CRV is ugly. I'll admit styling is subjective, but come on. That grill is terrible. It looks like the thing has a cleft lip. The tumblehome is non-existant, making it look very awkward, and the profile in the back it just plain odd. The overall styling is very feminine, which Honda admitted to doing, but it's extremely so. To each their own I guess!
December 24, 2006, 11:14:51 pm I think the new CR-V looks much better in-the-tin than in pics, but I still think the front is a little overwrought. However, I really like the "d-Pillar." I thought it ugly in the pics, but it really works.
December 25, 2006, 04:23:26 pm James..Do the seats finally slide back far enough for the long-legged? This was a real issue in the 1st and 2nd gen models.
December 25, 2006, 05:07:11 pm
I consider myself part of the "Honda faithful", but if I needed to replace my wifeys car, I would not be buying a Honda. I'd be buying a V6 RAV instead. Thanks for nothing Honda...
You are quite right tough, there will be plenty on the roads, but Toyota will now pick up the buyers that are non-pedestrian with their V6 RAV.
December 27, 2006, 10:40:59 am I've test the new CR-V with my dad. He was actually planning on getting one since he was missing his 1999 a lot. He's now driving a 2001 Civic. Let's just say the Civic can't keep up in snow up here hehe.
Well, he was soo sad after the drive that he told the his salesman that he would probably get a Suzuki, Toyota, or the new Mitsu Outlander before buying another CR-V. He's at his 5th Honda right now...
The new CR-V rides well, is well equipped and all, but there's nothing under the hood. There's no kickdown. It takes forever to get from 80 to 120. I even ask my dad to smash it and he said, I'm already full throttle.....
At the price of the fully equipped CR-V they should have put the 2.3L Turbo from the RD-X in it or the V6 of the Accord... I guess Honda will add a bigger engine in 2-3 years like they did with the first gen CR-V when they will see sales going down...
Now my dad can't wait for the Mitsu to get here.
December 27, 2006, 11:35:50 am
Maybe if you filled in the profile we would know where "up here" is
December 27, 2006, 12:22:31 pm I drive a 2002 CRV. I can tell you that the CRV has MORE THAN Enough Power from the K24 (2.4 liter in-line 4) engine. I can squeak the tires from first and second gears and if I red line to 6500 rpm before I shift I actually beat a lot of cars from red light start. I can go long up hill doing 140+ Km/h and still accelerating and sometimes I drive 150+ KM on highway.
However, there are two essential elements on my CRV:
1. My CRV is a 5-speed manual. I can red line when every I wanted, and it has gearing is very short so there are always LOTS of powers when you drive on highway. 3000rpm @ 105 km/h
2. I have 225/60 high performance tires so that the car corners great and very stable on highway with 150+ speed, it tops out at 180km, the fuel cuts off. damn it.
So, if you are planning to buy a 2007 CRV, go but something else because THERE ARE NO MANUAL SHIFT WHAT SO EVER.
Your option is to get a 2006 CRV 5-speed, or a Nissan x-trail 5 speed ( or 6 - speed ??), or a Subaru forester 5-speed. You can even get a turbo forester.
When you get your vehicle, change a set of good high performance tire ( I use yoko AVS DB2) and your SUV will turely drives like a sport car.
PS: I can perfectly handle the 160 hp from the 2.4 engine for my CRV, and if acutally I think it will be to much power if they put a turbo for a CRV, but for antomatic a Turbo or v6 is a MUST. there is no power for in-line 4 automatic period.
December 30, 2006, 02:27:09 am The new CR-V looks ok in profile. And it looks better in black because it hides the front end better. But overall the RAV4 looks better, especially the Sport with the 18" wheels.
But if I were to buy a compact CUV, the RAV4 would get the nod for 3 reasons --- auto-off headlights, the V6, and the hand parking brake. I don't ever want to be 30 minutes into a movie or a ball game and wonder if I had turned the lights off. The V6 because...well...how can you say no to 269hp? And besides, 4 people plus luggage and skis going up the Sea-to-Sky in a 4 banger CUV is no fun! And ah...the parking brake. I've had both kinds. To me, the hand brake is just easier, more intuitive to use. I never could get completely used to a foot brake. Maybe due to the fact that you use the same motion to activate and release the brake. Maybe it's just me, but that seems to throw me off sync. With the hand brake...you stop, pull brake up. Push brake down, drive off. Two distinct actions for 2 distinct functions. As I said, it becomes intuitive, second-nature. With a foot brake, because it is the same action, you'd find yourself thinking after you've driven off, "Is the brake on or off". Then you'd have to look at the light on the dash to confirm. With a hand brake, you can simply drop your right hand, without taking your eyes off the road, to quickly confirm. Also, with a foot brake, I would end up leaving big ugly, muddy scuff marks on the interior panels and trim near the brake pedal.
February 05, 2007, 10:02:11 am I know Hondas are exceptionally well built and engineered vehicles. I'm even impressed at the standard safety features on the new CR-V. I don't think I will ever seriously look at buying a CR-V because the only one in our price range is the LX-AWD. As nice as the EX-L is, I cannot justify that much money for a car that won't stir my driver's heart with it's tepid 166hp engine. I could justify the CR-V's performance at the LX base price. But then I would have to ride around in a vehicle with black plastic door handles, the most spartan interior I have ever seen (although the plastics are high quality), and also some outrageously ugly steel wheels. Has Honda ever made a decent looking steel wheel? As far as equipment goes the LX would probably satisfy me, the only extra I would need is Heated Seats. Oops! You have to go up a few packages for that. The other issue with Honda's is that you either get the 'stripper' or the full load. There is really nothing in between.
I'm sure plenty of people will purchase a CR-V, but maybe they will regret spending the huge money on their EX-L when it comes time to pass that semi-truck.
February 10, 2007, 12:26:46 pm
That is an excellent description of the reaction I'm having to driving a car with a foot brake after a lifetime of driving handbrake cars. Although it has a hand-release, I really, reallly prefer a handbrake to a foot pedal. Of all the new behaviours I'm having to learn (driving an automatic, different position of rear wiper, power windows and door locks), the hardest thing to stop myself from doing is reaching for the handbrake.
February 23, 2007, 11:02:54 am
I was in one the other day, I am about 6-1 and over 260
The seat did slide back enough for me and the was also room for me to seat behind the drive seat
I found the in Santa Fe the seat would not slide back far enough
February 23, 2007, 01:35:50 pm Sat in one and had less of a problem than in the past.
February 23, 2007, 04:41:49 pm
Loss some weight ? If so tell me how
February 25, 2007, 10:13:21 am My wife and I bought a 2007 crv. With a new baby and a morgage we put down 27 000 and financed the rest over 36 mths. The dealer gave us 1000 off the msrp and gave us the platitum protection kit. The truck LOOKS AWESOME from the front end. After testdriving this CR-v and comparing it to the later styles the older one look bland, no contours and kinda boxey.Also with my wife having no need for racing (Turbo?)and not knowing stick this vechicle is perfect for us. We owned hondas before and they mantian thier resale value and the need for major repairs well...we never needed any from our cars bought from new. So I am defending the CR-v. The redesign sold us along with the honda dependablity. As for the price, testdriving 2002-2006 models with 50K-80K would cost us 23-25 thousand. Us not knowing the driving history and along with scratches in the interior and exterior we felt that spending the extra cash for a betterlooking brand new one was warrented.
February 25, 2007, 10:37:37 am
Nice review of your needs!
Which model did you get?
I think I would have put 27gs on the house
February 25, 2007, 01:14:13 pm
I was in one the other day, I am about 6-1 and over 260
The seat did slide back enough for me and the was also room for me to seat behind the drive seat
I found the in Santa Fe the seat would not slide back far enough
Thanks. Finally sat in one at the show on Friday. It's better but I still found it wouldn't go far enough back for my liking.
February 25, 2007, 02:38:12 pm New baby and a Big Mortgage ....and BUYING a new CAR.........
June 15, 2007, 12:36:28 am Well this will be my second crv my 2004 has cost us 10,000 in repairs but
we had the extended warranty.
I hope the 2007 are better.
June 15, 2007, 01:11:09 am
we had the extended warranty.
I hope the 2007 are better.
Wow !!!... I was under the impression that Honda has bulletproof quality and reliability.
What happened?
June 15, 2007, 01:43:48 am