Ask the Car People.SM


Getting a new Outlander, CR-V or RAV4

121 messages,  Last post on Aug 26, 2009 at 8:49 PM

You are in the Honda CR-V Forum.

What is this discussion about? Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, Mitsubishi Outlander

Messages Page 12 of 13

#109 of 121 Re: CRV or Rav4? [comem47] by blueiedgod

Aug 25, 2009 (9:54 am)

Replying to: comem47 (Aug 24, 2009 2:21 pm)
The V6 Outlander tows 3500 lbs. Now what is the towing on the CRV?
How about the warranty differences?
 
And what do you suggest I tow?
 
Besides, if you are regularly towing something that is 3500 lbs, maybe you should be looking into a body on frame vehicle, not a unibody?
 
Hondas come with 5 years/60,000 mile powertrain warranty.
 
Next....

#110 of 121 Re: CRV or Rav4? [piast] by blueiedgod

Aug 25, 2009 (10:04 am)

Replying to: piast (Aug 24, 2009 4:08 pm)
I hope 8 sec is not your optimistic estimate only. Can you point to any official specs page we can verify it? The numbers I was able to find were in the 10-12 sec range. And that changes everything... Outlander V6 time is 8.1 sec, and Rav4 V6 - 7.1 sec
( from Edmunds and Motor Trend tests). How exactly you are going to run dose circles again?
 
I tested mine with G-tech device.
 
Here is the old review from Edmunds for the 2002 model.
 
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=48575/pageNumber=2
 
Next time I am in Chicago, I will show you exactly how I run circles around those vehicles...

#111 of 121 Re: CRV or Rav4? [blueiedgod] by comem47

Aug 25, 2009 (11:34 am)

Replying to: blueiedgod (Aug 25, 2009 9:54 am)
Hondas come with 5 years/60,000 mile powertrain warranty.
  
Next..
 
That's the bumper to bumper with roadside assistance on the Outlander. Powertrain is 10 yr/100K.
 
As for towing I regularly tow 1600 lbs effortlessly in winder. I have the ability to go to 3500. Most all the silimilar CUVs are 1000 lbs (Rav 4 is the same and Subaru is 2400). I'm Just referencing your original claim of running around the Outlander in circles with a CRV.. And I've gotten 27 mph on hwy (typical over 25). 20 is typical around town only driving. Did a rather nice job of hauling a 4X8 sheet of plywood and 8' 2X4's last week (with the tailgate down only 2 foot sticks beyond it.) That's what I call utility. Yes, my old Dakota and wife's Durango could haul more, but 15MPG on a good day. (I love parking the Outlander, tightest turning radius I've ever had).
..

#112 of 121 Re: CRV or Rav4? [blueiedgod] by piast

Aug 25, 2009 (12:11 pm)

Replying to: blueiedgod (Aug 25, 2009 10:04 am)
You are on.
While 8.7 sec 0-60 from that article is really not bed, it is still slower than Mitsubishi and Rav4. Sorry, no circles for you this time. Try Escape forum .

#113 of 121 Re: CRV or Rav4? [piast] by comem47

Aug 25, 2009 (1:27 pm)

Replying to: piast (Aug 25, 2009 12:11 pm)
While old habits are hard to break (I even ordered a stick for my V8 Dakota back in '98 not for speed, but preference) I think it's a dream to think the 5 speed stick 4 cyl CRV is going to out accelerate the 220 HP 6 speed auto V6 Outlander.
 
Honda doesn't even offer a stick now (2009)anyway. So with currently available vehicles it's
 
 166 HP 5 speed auto 4 cyl at 3549 lbs for the 4WD CRV to
 220 HP 6 speed auto V6 at 3781 lbs for the 4WD Outlander.
(you can manually paddle shift at the wheel if you want).
 
But go ahead, flail away!!! and take on the 269 HP RAV 4 while at it.

#114 of 121 Apples to apples by motoguy128

Aug 25, 2009 (2:07 pm)

I think he's comparing 4 cylinder models here... with similar equipment, pricing and fuel economy.
 
I think he's also comparing the lighter Gen 2.5 with the 5 speed manual.
 
So not really a fair comparison all around.
 
It's not a secret that the 3rd genration CR-V won't win any races. But most folks that buy Hondas but them for the all around package, not the raw power under the hood.
 
If a RAV4 had the same steering, brakes and ergonomics as the CR-V, and didn't have the weird interior styling, I would consider it.
 
Also, peak horsepower numbers don't show how a engine performs in the bottom end and midrange where it's driving in the real world 99% of the time. I don't spend all day redlining my CR-V.

#115 of 121 Re: Apples to apples [motoguy128] by comem47

Aug 25, 2009 (3:27 pm)

Replying to: motoguy128 (Aug 25, 2009 2:07 pm)
If you read article 102 he made the boast:
 
"I'll just keep my 05 He-RV with a clutch and run circles around V6 powered SheUV's." (Impliing a stick is more important than displacement).
 
Torque is what is key (hp can be peaky, but low end torque is what accelerates from a rest and makes a vehicle more drivable in traffic vs high rpm rice rocket that needs to slip the clutch at 5K to move from rest.)

#116 of 121 Re: CRV or Rav4? [motoguy128] by lori56

Aug 25, 2009 (6:10 pm)

Replying to: motoguy128 (Aug 19, 2009 11:11 am)
Yes, I also find that in most cars my left leg goes numb, but in the '09 CRV, I am more comfortable, and my leg doesn't lean against the door.... I have a '04 Rav 4, and that car now seems cramped in comparison... I also find the CRV to give a smoother ride...

#117 of 121 Re: Apples to apples [comem47] by motoguy128

Aug 26, 2009 (3:15 am)

Replying to: comem47 (Aug 25, 2009 3:27 pm)
Acceleration is a combination of torque and gearing. A V6 making 200 ft-lbs but with a 0.70 gear ratio, will accelerate the same as the same vehcile making 100ft-lbs but with a 1.40 gear ratio. Of course, the smaller engine is running twice the RPM's so they are both rpoducing the same HP.
 
So yes, torque is the most improtant, but it's the gearing that determines how it accelrates... that's in part how a manual transmission can have an advantage.
 
To understand it better, consider how quickly a 600cc motorcycle accelerates in 3rd gear at say 10,000 RPM vs. 2nd gear at 10,000 RPM. Both are making the same torque and horsepower, the only difference is how fast they are traveling, and the mechanical advantage available. You'll find that even if you factor out wind drag, a vehcile will accelerate proportional to the gear ratio at a given RPM.

#118 of 121 Re: Apples to apples [motoguy128] by comem47

Aug 26, 2009 (4:39 am)

Replying to: motoguy128 (Aug 26, 2009 3:15 am)
One upon a time 4 cylinder automatics were so lossy and badly set up that indeed you better have a stick or you couldn't get out of your own way . My sister's auto Pinto back in '73 comes to mind. When it downshifted it would scream as the revs soared, but go no faster! It's a lot different today with much better designed 4 cylinder autos, and I know I couldn't out-shift my 6 speed auto in the V6 Outlander. I know I also prefer towing in an auto, so much easier in stop and go traffic.

Messages Page 12 of 13

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement