Spy Shots : 2007 Honda CR-V ( UPDATED, Uncamoed Pg 3)
Thread Starter
G35x - RWD/AWD goodness
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,950
Likes: 1
From: Michigan
Spy Shots : 2007 Honda CR-V ( UPDATED, Uncamoed Pg 3)
This spy shot shows a disguised 2007 Honda CR-V in shakedown testing six months before its scheduled debut. The new model appears not to move up to a bigger size, unlike its current competitor the Toyota RAV4. (Photo courtesy of Christa Lehmann/Hidden Image)
TOKYO — Honda engineers are testing prototypes of the next-generation CR-V crossover vehicle, about six months ahead of its introduction this fall as a 2007 model.
In the photo here, engineers are running shakedown tests on a disguised '07 CR-V (left) and a production-ready '07 Acura RDX (right). While rival Toyota moved its RAV4 up the scale in size and price, Honda will keep the CR-V about the same dimensionally.
Like the current vehicle, the new CR-V will share its basic platform with the compact Civic. With room for five passengers, it will be slightly smaller than the new RDX, which shares its underpinnings with the next-generation Honda Accord.
The two vehicles, although similar in size and shape, will look quite a bit different. One notable hallmark on the Honda model is its set of vertical taillamps, which are carried over from the current CR-V.
The '07 CR-V will also lose the trunk-mounted spare tire, giving it less of an outdoorsy look and more of an "urban adventure" flavor. Power will continue to come from a 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine. Honda has no immediate plans for a V6 option.
What this means to you: The redesigned CR-V won't be competing any longer with the RAV4; instead, Korean brands Hyundai and Kia will be its chief rivals.
Source: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...cleId=110193#2
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 94,629
Likes: 280
From: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
I'm not what you would call a speed freak by any means, but I agree this vehicle needs a V6, or at least a larger 4 with more torque. This is true not only for the CRV but many other vehicles in this class as well...Outlander, RAV4, Santa Fe, Escape, Tribute, etc.....
These vehicles, especially with their high stance, air resistance, weight and drag of AWD systems, automatic transmissions, A/C systems, and other power-draining options, just don't cut it for a lot of people with their 120-170 HP four-bangers. However, the AWD systems use so much extra gas, especially with V6s, that manufacturers use smaller fours just to get relatively good mileage..and even then it is not equal to 2WD versions.
I myself can drive a vehicle with this power-to-weight-to-drag ratio with no problems, but a lot of people will demand more....and are willing to pay the fuel price for it.
The Subaru Outback, also in this class, is a little more suited to a non-turbo four because it is more car-based and carlike being a raised Legacy ) than the rest, but still is no dragster.
These vehicles, especially with their high stance, air resistance, weight and drag of AWD systems, automatic transmissions, A/C systems, and other power-draining options, just don't cut it for a lot of people with their 120-170 HP four-bangers. However, the AWD systems use so much extra gas, especially with V6s, that manufacturers use smaller fours just to get relatively good mileage..and even then it is not equal to 2WD versions.
I myself can drive a vehicle with this power-to-weight-to-drag ratio with no problems, but a lot of people will demand more....and are willing to pay the fuel price for it.
The Subaru Outback, also in this class, is a little more suited to a non-turbo four because it is more car-based and carlike being a raised Legacy ) than the rest, but still is no dragster.
Last edited by mmarshall; Apr 27, 2006 at 11:20 AM.
Speaks French in Russian
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,397
Likes: 100
From: What is G?
Well they kinda dug themselves a hole by putting a Turbo 4 in the RDX. They obviously can't put a bigger V6 engine in the cheaper CR-V and not expect to cannabolize sales of the RDX. Atleast putting the Turbo 4 in the CR-V would be nice, but slightly detuned. However this new CR-V will probably be a lot smaller than the RAV4 and probably the same size as the RDX which I found to be rediculously cramped front and back.
The V6 RAV4 is gonna have a lot of car companies scratching their heads.
So far it doesnt look bad. A lot less cartoonish like the current model.
The V6 RAV4 is gonna have a lot of car companies scratching their heads.
So far it doesnt look bad. A lot less cartoonish like the current model.
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 94,629
Likes: 280
From: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
Originally Posted by magneto112
Well they kinda dug themselves a hole by putting a Turbo 4 in the RDX. They obviously can't put a bigger V6 engine in the cheaper CR-V and not expect to cannabolize sales of the RDX. :
Trending Topics
ClubLexus Stories
Celebrating Lexus & Toyota from Around the Globe
Lexus NX 350h: A Fuel-Sipping Secret Hot Hatch???
Michael S. Palmer
5 Best & 5 Worst Lexus Daily Drivers
Joe Kucinski
Top 5 Hottest Lexus & Toyotas in 2026 (Hardest To Buy)
Brett Foote
2026 Lexus IS 350 F Sport Review: The Last of Its Kind Still Rocks
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Confusing Things Lexus Has Ever Done!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Lexus ES Review: Lexus Re-Embraces Founding Principles
Michael S. Palmer
10 Lexus Bargains That are Cheaper Than a New Toyota RAV4
Joe Kucinski
8 Weirdest Things Lexus Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
10 Lexus Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
What is the size of the new CRV? If it stayed roughtly the same I don't think it really needs a V6. The RAV4 definatley needed a V6 because it grew in size so much. That RAV4 is no longer a compact SUV like it was when it entered the market. It is now a midsized SUV almost as larger as an RX350 and about the size of a Highlander.
The RAV4 is interesting because it is kind of weak with the 4 cylinder engine, but a moster with the optional V6. Kind of reminds me of the IS250/IS350. Optioned with the different engines the two cars are on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to performance. Obvioously I'd take the power, but I wonder why Toyota/Lexus ceates such a wide gap in performance between their engine options at least with those two cars I've mentioned?
The RAV4 is interesting because it is kind of weak with the 4 cylinder engine, but a moster with the optional V6. Kind of reminds me of the IS250/IS350. Optioned with the different engines the two cars are on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to performance. Obvioously I'd take the power, but I wonder why Toyota/Lexus ceates such a wide gap in performance between their engine options at least with those two cars I've mentioned?
Lexus Champion
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,788
Likes: 3
From: Illinois
Originally Posted by 4TehNguyen
its an odd situation, if you put a V6 in the RDX then why get a MDX, same reason why theres no V6 TSX, why get a TL when if a V6 TSX exists
Originally Posted by TheRupp
Indeed. They should drop the 3.2, put the 3.5 in the TL, and put the Accord's 3.0 in the TSX. That'd boost some sales.
Lexus Champion
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,788
Likes: 3
From: Illinois
Originally Posted by CK6Speed
The rumor is the next TSX will get the I4 turbo engine that is in the RDX or a version of it. I think that is a much better choice than a V6 in the TSX as the TSX is already starting to be the new tunner Acura car. With a turbocharged engine, it will perform better than the V6, have better weight distribution, and we all know how the aftermarket likes to turbocharge Honda/Acura cars. Imagine what they will do with a stock turbo engine.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This thread has the excitement of making a Jello Pudding Pop. Next CR-V= will sell like hotcakes, but who really cares.
IMO, I like the small 1st gen the best. A very good girlfriend of mine has bought 2 and she loves it. Typical Honda, reliable, not fussy, nothing great, nothing bad. I also fall asleep everytime she drives and I am a passenger.
I find the 2nd one so horrible to look at, I vomit when they pass by or I see them parked at Wal-Mart. But it again, gets the job done, it sells for Honda and nothing wrong with that.
IMO, I like the small 1st gen the best. A very good girlfriend of mine has bought 2 and she loves it. Typical Honda, reliable, not fussy, nothing great, nothing bad. I also fall asleep everytime she drives and I am a passenger.
I find the 2nd one so horrible to look at, I vomit when they pass by or I see them parked at Wal-Mart. But it again, gets the job done, it sells for Honda and nothing wrong with that.
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 94,629
Likes: 280
From: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
Originally Posted by newr
As an 01 CRV owner, I do feel it needs a little more torque
Because of owner complaints ( like yours ) with earlier CRV 's, Honda put a 160 HP four in the last version with ( for the first time in Honda history ) an equal amount of torque ( 160 ft.-lbs. ) at a reasonable RPM......but I agree with you that because of the CRV's design and equipment, that still may not be enough.