Fan Koni
 |
|
since seeing the first spy shots overlapped on the current CRV the drive shaft now somewhat different, and I still have no Idea why.
I somehow expect the SH-AWD may now get a baby sister.
|
danielgr
 |
|
Fan Koni wrote:
since seeing the first spy shots overlapped on the current CRV the drive shaft now somewhat different, and I still have no Idea why.
I somehow expect the SH-AWD may now get a baby sister.
|
If you expect SH-AWD you'll be dissapointed.
Majority of CR-V buyers aren't looking for increased performance, and IMHO 150-200Hp class SUV doesn't need anything like "torque vectoring". Looking at the competition, whatever comes should:
- have even lower losses in FWD mode (allowing for 4WD models to nearly match FWD ones in FE)
- be more reactive on bad-weather/rough roads, more able on slopes. Taking the JP example one of the main reasons why Nissan's X-Trail destroys the CR-V here is because many believe CR-V's AWD isn't "good enough for snow". And in JP mothers buying family cars get minivans, not compact SUVs. Those buying SUVs want to feel they get a "real one". They may never see the difference, but they still want to feel they do.
Personally, on my only experience with ice on a CR-V (2nd gen) we did get a fair ammount of spin and the car got sideways before the 4WD locked in. Sure we didn't crash, but since then my wife feels uneasy whenever the road gets white. I have to guess a more responsive system could have avoided that situation.
|
Fan Koni
 |
|
SH AWD has been talked about since 2004, in 2007 the rdx suv came into the market with the system.
Ages ago - so yes I am expecting something similar to sh awd.
As you say a system which reacts faster than the current and can disengage to save on fuel.
I am not so much concerned on the fuel savings, but even on the current CRV the time till engagement of the rear wheels is not quick enough. Not talking about snow but just rain and slippage uphill - the current system is not ensuring enough comfort & Safety - both of which is the USP of the CRV. It was never about performance.
|
danielgr
 |
|
Fan Koni wrote:
SH AWD has been talked about since 2004, in 2007 the rdx suv came into the market with the system.
Ages ago - so yes I am expecting something similar to sh awd.
As you say a system which reacts faster than the current and can disengage to save on fuel.
I am not so much concerned on the fuel savings, but even on the current CRV the time till engagement of the rear wheels is not quick enough. Not talking about snow but just rain and slippage uphill - the current system is not ensuring enough comfort & Safety - both of which is the USP of the CRV. It was never about performance.
|
-SH-AWD is about performance, and the CR-V needs not.
-SH-AWD is a hell of an expensive and complex system, and the CR-V is on a value position, not luxury.
-People buying CR-Vs care about fuel economy, which is (other than price) why 2WD versions are so popular.
-seems we agree improved responsiveness would be desirable, but if it comes it won't be from a permanent AWD system, nor from a torque-vectoring one. And if you expect so be ready to be disappointed, that's all I'm saying...
|
saitamahonda
 |
|
@danielgr - as the OP mentioned, its SH-AWD's little sister, or perhaps a better "real-time 4wd" system, not particularly the SH-AWD's.
I think you're mistaken about a few points however. Firstly, you assume you represent the voice of CR-V buyers when clearly you do not. Secondly, the low-end 2wd CR-V is the value buy. The entire range is not so. Remember, there is no RDX outside of the US. So a more "performant" CR-V is in order. The US doesn't have a diesel CR-V and in that regards "lacks performance", though it did receive a stronger engine recently. The MPG between 2wd and 4wd CR-V is pretty close to negligible in my opinion, but if you're a MPG(or monthly fuel cost) nut, then maybe you should look past the 4wd and what is meant for and go with the 2wd. That is the trade off.
I myself am still driving my '02 2nd gen 4wd CR-V EX. One rainy day I lost traction on a twisty S section on the hwy and the real-time 4wd faithfully kicked in and helped me to regain control.
I have never once had a complaint about MPG being "less" than 2wd, nor ever an issue with handling other than the occasional torque steer (from a heavy foot) typical to 2wd FF cars. For this reason, a baby-SH-AWD would fit the role beautifully which would allow a better distribution of torque and power to all 4 wheels instead of just the front 2.
The problem with the "current" SH-AWD system in general was the weight of the system, not particularly the cost.
|
HONDA AFVM
 |
|
saitamahonda wrote:
@danielgr - as the OP mentioned, its SH-AWD's little sister, or perhaps a better "real-time 4wd" system, not particularly the SH-AWD's.
I think you're mistaken about a few points however. Firstly, you assume you represent the voice of CR-V buyers when clearly you do not. Secondly, the low-end 2wd CR-V is the value buy. The entire range is not so. Remember, there is no RDX outside of the US. So a more "performant" CR-V is in order. The US doesn't have a diesel CR-V and in that regards "lacks performance", though it did receive a stronger engine recently. The MPG between 2wd and 4wd CR-V is pretty close to negligible in my opinion, but if you're a MPG(or monthly fuel cost) nut, then maybe you should look past the 4wd and what is meant for and go with the 2wd. That is the trade off.
I myself am still driving my '02 2nd gen 4wd CR-V EX. One rainy day I lost traction on a twisty S section on the hwy and the real-time 4wd faithfully kicked in and helped me to regain control.
I have never once had a complaint about MPG being "less" than 2wd, nor ever an issue with handling other than the occasional torque steer (from a heavy foot) typical to 2wd FF cars. For this reason, a baby-SH-AWD would fit the role beautifully which would allow a better distribution of torque and power to all 4 wheels instead of just the front 2.
The problem with the "current" SH-AWD system in general was the weight of the system, not particularly the cost.
|
saitamahonda.........
No, danielgr has it right!!! Take it from a guy that owned a 2nd gen CRV and drives 3rd gens all the time, it is a great 4WD system, but there is slippage...why, the system only engages the rear wheels when it detects slippage in the front.......Now, once the 4WD system is activated, there is no stopping it, I climbed huge hills, went up the bottom of the doors in water and mud......., dirt trails, I beat the living SHIT out of my CRV, did shit nobody would do in a CRV and it took it, never got stuck, but there was always that initial slip and there still is.
My understanding from my source, and I haven't mentioned this yet, but since this is a topic I will put it out there. They are modifying the 4WD system, to what extent I can't say, but if one had to guess, it will be on the line of the Pilot, not the Acura system.
Your Honda customer is not concerned about taking corners at 75MPG in their CRV, but they are about getting on the highway faster, passing power and stopping, none of that has anything to do with SH-AWD.......and everything to do with what Honda means, power with efficiency.........So yes, expect to see a different $X$ system on the CRV, but NOT any system like an SH-AWD........
|
danielgr
 |
|
HONDA AFVM wrote:
saitamahonda wrote:
@danielgr - as the OP mentioned, its SH-AWD's little sister, or perhaps a better "real-time 4wd" system, not particularly the SH-AWD's.
I think you're mistaken about a few points however. Firstly, you assume you represent the voice of CR-V buyers when clearly you do not. Secondly, the low-end 2wd CR-V is the value buy. The entire range is not so. Remember, there is no RDX outside of the US. So a more "performant" CR-V is in order. The US doesn't have a diesel CR-V and in that regards "lacks performance", though it did receive a stronger engine recently. The MPG between 2wd and 4wd CR-V is pretty close to negligible in my opinion, but if you're a MPG(or monthly fuel cost) nut, then maybe you should look past the 4wd and what is meant for and go with the 2wd. That is the trade off.
I myself am still driving my '02 2nd gen 4wd CR-V EX. One rainy day I lost traction on a twisty S section on the hwy and the real-time 4wd faithfully kicked in and helped me to regain control.
I have never once had a complaint about MPG being "less" than 2wd, nor ever an issue with handling other than the occasional torque steer (from a heavy foot) typical to 2wd FF cars. For this reason, a baby-SH-AWD would fit the role beautifully which would allow a better distribution of torque and power to all 4 wheels instead of just the front 2.
The problem with the "current" SH-AWD system in general was the weight of the system, not particularly the cost.
|
saitamahonda.........
No, danielgr has it right!!! Take it from a guy that owned a 2nd gen CRV and drives 3rd gens all the time, it is a great 4WD system, but there is slippage...why, the system only engages the rear wheels when it detects slippage in the front.......Now, once the 4WD system is activated, there is no stopping it, I climbed huge hills, went up the bottom of the doors in water and mud......., dirt trails, I beat the living SHIT out of my CRV, did shit nobody would do in a CRV and it took it, never got stuck, but there was always that initial slip and there still is.
My understanding from my source, and I haven't mentioned this yet, but since this is a topic I will put it out there. They are modifying the 4WD system, to what extent I can't say, but if one had to guess, it will be on the line of the Pilot, not the Acura system.
Your Honda customer is not concerned about taking corners at 75MPG in their CRV, but they are about getting on the highway faster, passing power and stopping, none of that has anything to do with SH-AWD.......and everything to do with what Honda means, power with efficiency.........So yes, expect to see a different $X$ system on the CRV, but NOT any system like an SH-AWD........
|
Glad for once I'm not the only one thinking something here.
That said, as for the "performance argument outside the USA" saitamahonda, keep in mind that:
- In most EU countries Honda only offers 150Hp class CR-Vs (be them Diesel / Gasoline there is no change in outright performance, though obviously the torquier turbo engine feels faster; in some countries Honda brought the 2.4L after the MMC, but would be surprised if they did it again).
- In JP Honda has gone from the offering only the 2.4L in the past gen to an 2.0L in the new one.
- There are many other global markets which are selling the 2.0L, some alongside the 2.4L, some exclusively 2.0L.
So really, if there is no "hard push for more performance" in the US (and CR-V outsells competitors which offer both more powerful i4s and also V6 alternatives), there isn't elsewhere. First thing my wife asked me when I said "you know, a new CR-V is coming" was: "is it a hybrid?". The answer was not, but I'm pretty sure that torque-vectoring isn't something majority of CR-V buyers (be it in the US or abroad) would rather pay for.
|
King77
 |
|
|
Does anybody know what a VTM-4 used in previous MDX was? How it worked? I never found anything about it. Could it be something like this? But we will probably get something like Haldex clutch.
|
|
|
| |
|