Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Article Comments: Small AWD SUVs Comparison
151 messages, Last post on Mar 30, 2007 at 4:39 PM
You are in the SUVs Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
Article comments for Comparison Test: Small All-Wheel-Drive SUVs - We've gathered three such vehicles for this comparison: the all-new 2006 Toyota RAV4, the 2007 Hyundai Santa Fe and the 2007 Mazda CX-7. It'd be uncomplicated to call these three "mini SUVs," but when they're loosely based on midsize sedans Toyota Camry, Hyundai Sonata and Mazda 6, it'd be more correct to call them midsize crossovers. (more)
|
Replying to: carfreak8 (Dec 08, 2006 3:18 pm) You didn't post a front shot of the CR-V 
|
|
|
Replying to: cxrabbit (Dec 08, 2006 6:50 pm) I did not say this, The guy I was replying to before said this. I do have to agree with you about the 4 cylinder, it is not the strongest or most powerful thing on the road by any means, but it really is not a problem. I don't have a problem with merging or highway cruising. I do have to somewhat agree with you about how it rides. It does not have the really fun spirit, I mean it is not fast. But, it is not meant to be, it is smooth, quiet, and nice. This is not anything like the CX-7, that is fast, and spunky. As for the price, it is very competitive, you can get a 2007 Honda CR-V AWD EX-L w/navigation for only $500 than a 2007 Rav4 4x4 Limited 4-cylinder w/leather and sunroof. That is a competitive price for its biggest competitor. I really don't think the CX-7 is all that bad, nor is the CR-V.
|
|
|
Replying to: carfreak8 (Dec 08, 2006 6:28 pm) You might like to double check on that. The first month sales of 20K units contain 06s, actually, quite a few 2006 models  The interior in the CR-V is soooo much better than any of its competitors, such as the Rav4, Tucson/Sportage, Escape/Mariner/Tribute, Equinox/Torrent. It has very good in quality, fit and finish, materials, and ergonomics So why are we talking about the CR-V in here?
|
|
|
Replying to: carfreak8 (Dec 08, 2006 7:19 pm)  I really think you are employed by Honda, b/c you don't frequent the CR-V boards as often as you post here. How much is Honda paying you for all this advertisement? As it has been said in the past by may other posters...beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not everyone cares about your values in a vehicle. BTW my wife HATES the CR-V's styling. So, it's defiantly not for every woman.
|
|
|
Replying to: joe97 (Dec 08, 2006 7:17 pm) I found those pictures and I liked them. |
|
|
Replying to: joe97 (Dec 08, 2006 7:22 pm) Every one of those SUV's I listed would fit better with the title of this forum, so I felt like I should post a comparison between the CR-V and those. |
|
|
Replying to: sampowers (Dec 08, 2006 7:46 pm) I do NOT work for Honda. I have NEVER worked for a car company. I just want people to know that Honda's are really good cars. Hyundai is not the lower price Honda. I feel they still have a little ways to go before they are there. I also get that people do not care about other peoples opinions, but know one would be hear if they were not voicing there opinions about cars. In the past, I have said that things were just my opinion. BTW my wife HATES the CR-V's styling. So, it's defiantly not for every woman. No car is for everybody. But, generally, the car was designed for women. The target buyer for the CR-V is a early thirties women and that is what the CR-V has been and is designed for. This obviously is not always who is going to like it (people have their own tastes), but this is majority buyer (women). |
|
|
Replying to: carfreak8 (Dec 08, 2006 7:19 pm) Could be... but when it came to comparing it to the CX-7 it was a lot more money and lacked some things (basic things, like auto-headlights). The lowest I got Honda down to was still $3K more than a comparably equipped CX-7. But that was just for ME. I had a breaking point of $30K and would not go over it. I know I could have kept costs down on both cars, and could have gotten either for under $30K, it was just with more sacrifices on the CR-V... and ultimately, without that "spunk" I just would not have enjoyed it. CR-V is still a good vehicle.
|
|
|
Replying to: cxrabbit (Dec 08, 2006 8:46 pm) The CX-7 is a nice ride though and nice looking. I got the top level AWD EX-L with navigation (awesome system). It has been great, I do not really mind the power situation, or the auto headlights (I remember the time when they didn't have that at all) or the lack of power seats. I paid $28,000 and then I had added on the door visors and the roof rack (doesn't look so much like a wagon and now more SUV). I agree, the CR-V does not have the "spunk" of the CR-V, but doesn't bug me, I'm in my late forties and have kids who are moving out (only one left) and I don't need that fast stuff anymore (although I use to would have appreciated that). I like more interior stuff now like comfort and ergonomics. I still like my cars in perfect condition, and I have been around enough to know what quality is.
|
|
|
Replying to: sampowers (Dec 08, 2006 7:46 pm) Apparently, you cared enough to respond. Let's stick to issues and avoid the personal slings and arrows. tidester, host |
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Article Comments: Small AWD SUVs Comparison
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Mazda CX-7
2011 Toyota RAV4
2009 Hyundai Santa Fe
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
