dootndo2
 |
|
|
[Makes "pissy" face]
|
TonyEX
|
|
dootndo2 wrote:
[Makes "pissy" face]
|
Go drive it before you make such comments.
The current K24 is plenty enough. A V6 would make the car heavier and clumsier.
|
Restless
|
|
Things like V6 and more gears transmission (6>5, 7>6, 8>>5) are for Image.
Even if only 10% of buyers will invest in such engine, the mere possibility of such draws attention. At least in Europe these things are important for many buyers, pretty sure behind the Atlantic this works too.
|
Restless
|
|
|
obviously i meant transmissions with more gears. I hate being unable to edit posts :P
|
TonyEX
|
|
Restless wrote:
obviously i meant transmissions with more gears. I hate being unable to edit posts :P
|
The current engine in the CRV has an AT5 with 180bhp. With four on board and loaded with luggage it cruises handily at 80mph, it will speed up well to 90+.... At 75 mph on cruise control on the flats I get 25mpg+. This engine is free breathing on top and it revs well.
The previous version of the CRV-V, before the MMC, only had 166bhp -or so. I think it also had a lower red line and it felt "constipated" at high rpm. That engine felt strained at 80.
We swapped our 08 EXL AWD for an 11 this spring.. so yep. the difference is very noticeable. To the point where a V6 would be a handicap on the turns.
As far as an AT6... well, with the current engine it is just not needed. It might help on deep down acceleration but not on midrange... It might help also a bit on top cruising but somehow I think it would just add commplexity with little benefit.. just like VCM in the J35.
|
integrator
|
|
|
I don't agree that a V6 is necessary, unless weight increases significantly with the 2012 redesign. But the 2011 CRV's 4cyl + 5AT felt extremely busy and a bit winded when accelerating. If Honda can address this and reduce the cabin noise, I'd think that was sufficient.
|
gofast182
|
|
I really hope the OP is a joke.
Anyway the only things the CR-V really needs in my opinion is different ECU programming to allow a little more snap off the line and different shift points, also for 5th gear to be shorter since the car doesn't make enough power at 2,xxx RPM in 5th to hold it without constantly needing to downshift when going up even slight inclines.
|
dootndo2
|
|
A V6 option would enable us to have a higher towing capacity. Yes a V6 is desperatly needed. I had an 02 with the 2.4L and it was not very quick. The 6MT is a manual transmission and I hope they bring that back as well. I agree that it would be perhaps 10% of the market, but it would add marketshare to the CRV and not take it away.
I'm still looking for a 5 seat SUV/CUV from Honda that I can pull my boat with (3500 lbs). Still waiting....
Also, there's no way you are getting 25 MPG with the 2.4. The best I ever got was 21. The new CRV will have more pork, so I can't see why a nicely tuned 3.0L V6 would be an issue.
dootndo2
|
TonyEX
|
|
dootndo2 wrote:
A V6 option would enable us to have a higher towing capacity. Yes a V6 is desperatly needed. I had an 02 with the 2.4L and it was not very quick. The 6MT is a manual transmission and I hope they bring that back as well. I agree that it would be perhaps 10% of the market, but it would add marketshare to the CRV and not take it away.
I'm still looking for a 5 seat SUV/CUV from Honda that I can pull my boat with (3500 lbs). Still waiting....
Also, there's no way you are getting 25 MPG with the 2.4. The best I ever got was 21. The new CRV will have more pork, so I can't see why a nicely tuned 3.0L V6 would be an issue.
dootndo2
|
Don't compare the 02 with the 11... They are leagues apart.
The 140bhp on that puppy really was slow... the 166bhp brought it up a bit but it's the 180bhp that finally makes it go.
I doubt an MT6 will be available... If the Civic EX-NAVI doesn't allow it, why would it be allowable in the CRV? Heck, you can't even get an MT in the Fit Sport with NAVI anymore... our 09 Fit is rare.
As far as towing, I think if you want to tow then you buy a Pilot or an F250/Silverado.
|
A77
|
|
|
A V6 won't happen without significant increase in the length of the engine bay - Honda has said to me it is all about crush zones. Which is why the RDX also has a four cylinder. I don't think the CRV can handle a longer top gear - it already rumbles away at too low engine speed in 5th, when it should be in 4th in order to gain a few mpg. It needs a manual more than a V6 or s six spped auto but sadly there arent enough Americans out there who will be them. We do lose sales cos it doesnt have a V6 for sure - some people just either won't drive it or just think it needs more torque and hill climbing power. Probably more so here as power is 15% down anyway due to altitude. make no mistake though the 180 hp engine is way better than the 166. Be a nice engine in the civic.....
|
VTECRacer
|
|
|
I remember when the Rav4 came out with a V6, 6-speed transmission, and third-row seating. People were declaring the end of the CRV and were talking about the Rav4 as if it were the introduction of the Porsche Cayenne Turbo S (all because it got a V6). What ended up happening? CRV sales INCREASED, and Rav4 sales stayed the same, despite such a huge 'improvement' over the last generation.
|
Restless
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Restless wrote:
obviously i meant transmissions with more gears. I hate being unable to edit posts :P
|
The current engine in the CRV has an AT5 with 180bhp. With four on board and loaded with luggage it cruises handily at 80mph, it will speed up well to 90+.... At 75 mph on cruise control on the flats I get 25mpg+. This engine is free breathing on top and it revs well.
The previous version of the CRV-V, before the MMC, only had 166bhp -or so. I think it also had a lower red line and it felt "constipated" at high rpm. That engine felt strained at 80.
We swapped our 08 EXL AWD for an 11 this spring.. so yep. the difference is very noticeable. To the point where a V6 would be a handicap on the turns.
As far as an AT6... well, with the current engine it is just not needed. It might help on deep down acceleration but not on midrange... It might help also a bit on top cruising but somehow I think it would just add commplexity with little benefit.. just like VCM in the J35.
|
:S
Please reread my post. I directly wrote that "more gears" and V6 is important for IMAGE.
You know, for people who believe the more gears the better, or that amount of on-board memory videocard has is the most important factor
And suggesting Pilot for towing... what if one needs CR-V type of vehicle, but also wants to be able to tow something from time to time? Should he buy CR-V and Pilot?
|
danielgr
|
|
Restless wrote:
[...]
And suggesting Pilot for towing... what if one needs CR-V type of vehicle, but also wants to be able to tow something from time to time? Should he buy CR-V and Pilot?
|
(which by definition are intended to fulfill the needs/likes of the majority).
Happens to anyone with the slightest bit of personality sooner or later.
So if the question is : "is there someone that would rather have a V6 CR-V"? The answer is obviously yes.
That leads though to ask if "should Honda build any product anyone wants"? The answer is obviously not.
|
ipribadi
|
|
|
6AT would allow a shorter 1st gear without causing rpm drop between shifts too far apart. This would help the 4cyl off the line while fully loaded or towing.
|
NSXman
|
|
TonyE wrote:
dootndo2 wrote:
A V6 option would enable us to have a higher towing capacity. Yes a V6 is desperatly needed. I had an 02 with the 2.4L and it was not very quick. The 6MT is a manual transmission and I hope they bring that back as well. I agree that it would be perhaps 10% of the market, but it would add marketshare to the CRV and not take it away.
I'm still looking for a 5 seat SUV/CUV from Honda that I can pull my boat with (3500 lbs). Still waiting....
Also, there's no way you are getting 25 MPG with the 2.4. The best I ever got was 21. The new CRV will have more pork, so I can't see why a nicely tuned 3.0L V6 would be an issue.
dootndo2
|
Don't compare the 02 with the 11... They are leagues apart.
The 140bhp on that puppy really was slow... the 166bhp brought it up a bit but it's the 180bhp that finally makes it go.
I doubt an MT6 will be available... If the Civic EX-NAVI doesn't allow it, why would it be allowable in the CRV? Heck, you can't even get an MT in the Fit Sport with NAVI anymore... our 09 Fit is rare.
As far as towing, I think if you want to tow then you buy a Pilot or an F250/Silverado.
|
I have an 08 RAV4 V6 4WD, and I don't regret it in the least.
1. I can tow small items (jet skis and the like) with ease...which means I don't need a full size truck/SUV.
2. I can pull the hills north of Phoenix with ease.
3. At 80 mph, I am running just over 2000 rpm.
4. In the city, I get between 22-23 mpg.
5. On the highway I can get 25-26 mpg.
6. Acceleration is so brisk that it rarely requires full throttle around town.
7. There is NO clumsy handling with the V6 as was alleged in an earlier post.
8. Having the spare tire on the outside increases interior volume.
I could go on.
I have traditionally been a Honda fan, so I gave the CRV a look when I was in the market. The lack of a V6 is exactly what killed the car for me. I needed marginal towing capability, power for the hills, and interior space. While the CRV is a great car (actually trying to talk my parents into one right now), the RAV4 was the only car I could justify. The two worst things about the RAV4 is that it eats up brake pads at about a rate of 15-18k miles and the radio reception is lacking.
Bottom line, both the CRV and RAV4 are great cars. Both offer selling points the other does not. I personally would think with fuel the way it is, a V6 option in the CRV (assuming you could easily trump Pilot economy) is a must. The tow rating in my RAV4 is 3500 lbs. I could easily pull a fish boat across town with that. There is a market for marginal towing requirements....however I might be the minority.
|
A77
|
|
|
I very much doubt Honda would increase the 1500lb towing capacity if they put a V6 in it. RDX - which has V6 power is still 1500lbs.
|
Restless
|
|
A77 wrote:
I very much doubt Honda would increase the 1500lb towing capacity if they put a V6 in it. RDX - which has V6 power is still 1500lbs.
|
But...why?
Is it lacking torque? Doubtful, VW claim their Tiguan is ok for 1500kg even with much smaller (altho turbo) engine rated at 140ps
|
Honda-D
|
|
We used to rag on Honda about V6 since RAV has one.
But no more. I rather rag on them now for not having a turbo engine since Hyundai/Kia now have one.
|
rocky
|
|
Honda-D wrote:
We used to rag on Honda about V6 since RAV has one.
But no more. I rather rag on them now for not having a turbo engine since Hyundai/Kia now have one.
|
Tongue in cheek, no V8 RWD?
Hyundai/KIA at least in this area is proving extremely popular.
|
$mooth
|
|
Restless wrote:
A77 wrote:
I very much doubt Honda would increase the 1500lb towing capacity if they put a V6 in it. RDX - which has V6 power is still 1500lbs.
|
But...why?
Is it lacking torque? Doubtful, VW claim their Tiguan is ok for 1500kg even with much smaller (altho turbo) engine rated at 140ps
|
1500kg or 1500lbs?
It's not always the engine, it's the structure that has to support the increased stress. If you beef up the structure to the next logical stopping point (4500-5000lbs) it adds a lot more weight and cost to the entire system.
|
DCR
|
|
TonyE wrote:
The current engine in the CRV has an AT5 with 180bhp. With four on board and loaded with luggage it cruises handily at 80mph, it will speed up well to 90+.... At 75 mph on cruise control on the flats I get 25mpg+. This engine is free breathing on top and it revs well.
|
My wife commutes to work about 95% highway, drives 72 and I've never seen her trip computer read better than 23.6 mpg.
|
RAdams
|
|
The lifetime average on our '10 CR-V is 22.6 MPG as of the other day, but it spends the vast majority of its time on city streets. We've seen as high as 32.6MPG during a trip to Key West, though you don't often get above 55 on that route.
|
TonyEX
|
|
DCR wrote:
TonyE wrote:
The current engine in the CRV has an AT5 with 180bhp. With four on board and loaded with luggage it cruises handily at 80mph, it will speed up well to 90+.... At 75 mph on cruise control on the flats I get 25mpg+. This engine is free breathing on top and it revs well.
|
My wife commutes to work about 95% highway, drives 72 and I've never seen her trip computer read better than 23.6 mpg.
|
I got that number driving on the I5 in Oregon from Roseburg to Vancouver WA, clear weather, no wind, no rain, no AC.... I was astounded.
|
rocky
|
|
dootndo2 wrote:
A V6 option would enable us to have a higher towing capacity. Yes a V6 is desperatly needed. I had an 02 with the 2.4L and it was not very quick. The 6MT is a manual transmission and I hope they bring that back as well. I agree that it would be perhaps 10% of the market, but it would add marketshare to the CRV and not take it away.
I'm still looking for a 5 seat SUV/CUV from Honda that I can pull my boat with (3500 lbs). Still waiting....
Also, there's no way you are getting 25 MPG with the 2.4. The best I ever got was 21. The new CRV will have more pork, so I can't see why a nicely tuned 3.0L V6 would be an issue.
dootndo2
|
So the CRV in North America is limited to 1500lbs.
The CRV in England is rated to 1500 KG!!!!!
More than twice the US figure.
Why?
|
Grace141
|
|
DCR wrote:
TonyE wrote:
The current engine in the CRV has an AT5 with 180bhp. With four on board and loaded with luggage it cruises handily at 80mph, it will speed up well to 90+.... At 75 mph on cruise control on the flats I get 25mpg+. This engine is free breathing on top and it revs well.
|
My wife commutes to work about 95% highway, drives 72 and I've never seen her trip computer read better than 23.6 mpg.
|
I never saw less than 24 MPG in my '03 RT4WD with my daily drive at about 80% highway and I routinely got over 25 MPG. I even saw a week-long vacation drive with top speeds of about 55 MPH return 27.5 MPG. When the 2nd gen CRV was in production I routinely had folks ask about my gas mileage saying they could only get 19 to 20 MPG combined with their CRVs exactly like mine. Other than my easing into the throttle from stops the only real factor I could ever think of was tire pressure - I ran mine at 33 PSI. I practically never drove my CRV over 75 MPH on the highway though.
I guess I'm not surprised to read of people driving their CRVs in similar manners and getting different MPG results. It's difficult to determine why the results vary.
|
Grace141
|
|
RAdams wrote:
The lifetime average on our '10 CR-V is 22.6 MPG as of the other day, but it spends the vast majority of its time on city streets. We've seen as high as 32.6MPG during a trip to Key West, though you don't often get above 55 on that route.
|
I drove from Miami to Key West and back in a rented 4cyl 2wd Ford Escape several years ago and saw almost 32 MPG. That was a cool drive but the words "rogue wave" came to mind in many places. And who knew about Key Deer?
|
BartMan
|
|
Fewer liability lawyers in Europe? (it's not just Honda; Subaru ratings show similar disparity on the same models...)
|
hondacura
|
|
dootndo2 wrote:
A V6 option would enable us to have a higher towing capacity. Yes a V6 is desperatly needed. I had an 02 with the 2.4L and it was not very quick. The 6MT is a manual transmission and I hope they bring that back as well. I agree that it would be perhaps 10% of the market, but it would add marketshare to the CRV and not take it away.
I'm still looking for a 5 seat SUV/CUV from Honda that I can pull my boat with (3500 lbs). Still waiting....
Also, there's no way you are getting 25 MPG with the 2.4. The best I ever got was 21. The new CRV will have more pork, so I can't see why a nicely tuned 3.0L V6 would be an issue.
dootndo2
|
BUY A PILOT, SILLY!
Geez just ridiculous... "I need more towing capacity for 5 big butts Just get a Pilot.
|
|
|
| |
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
