For years Honda was much more successful in the United States than it was in its home country of Japan, so much so that rumors floated around that it might actually move its headquarters. In the top two among the Japanese brands in the United States for the past two decades, it was often fourth over there. This changed when Honda expanded beyond cars into unconventional vehicles like the original Odyssey and CR-V. Though the former did not do well here, largely because it was too small for American minivan buyers, it was a huge success in Japan. Because of its similarly compact dimensions and lack of power, the CR-V was not even initially intended to be sold in the U.S. An SUV innovatively based on a car chassis, that of the Civic, it was designed for the Japanese market. It did extremely well there after its fall 1995 introduction. Although Honda has fallen further and further behind Toyota in the United States, this was more than compensated for by its rise in Japan. There, thanks to the success of innovative vehicles like the CR-V, it has been in the #2 spot since 2000. Beyond sales volume, Honda has seen its profits in Japan rise to record levels while most other Japanese automakers have been flirting with bankruptcy. So the CR-V has been good for Honda. What about for you?

The basic concept is a sound one. Few people take SUVs off road. Instead, they want them for their high seating position, cargo and people hauling abilities, and rugged (non-minivan) image. At the same time, conventional SUVs’ ponderous handling and rough ride, due to their truck chassis, are unwelcome. Noting most SUV buyers’ true needs, Toyota and Honda designed vehicles that combined SUV bodies with car chassis. Toyota created the RAV4 off the Corolla, and Honda created the CR-V off the Civic. Now, everyone else is doing the same thing. But at first it was just Toyota and Honda, and only for the Japanese and European markets. Americans were not seen to desired such small “cute utes.” But Toyota’s U.S. dealers asked for the RAV4, and eventually Toyota obliged them for the 1996 model year. It sold better than expected here, so Honda followed with the CR-V in 1997.

Note: This review was written in late 2001. An updated, more recent review of the 2005 can be found here.

Redesigned for 2002, this time with Americans in mind

The CR-V did fairly well here, but did have its faults. It was grossly underpowered for American conditions, and was a bit flimsy in feel. For 2002, Honda is introducing a second-generation CR-V. This time it has been designed with the U.S. market in mind. First off, the new CR-V has a 160 horsepower 2.4 liter engine instead of a 126 (later 146) horsepower 2.0 liter. Much more significant than the boost in high-end power, the new engine produces 162 lb-ft of torque at 3600 RPM, while last year’s produced 133 at 4500. Given that most people speed more time near the torque peak than the power peak, this is a significant improvement.

Then there is the new body. A bit larger than the old one on the outside, inside the cabin is 3.6 inches wider, contains 2.7 inches more rear leg room, and includes five cubic feet more cargo volume. Already roomier than the RAV4, the CR-V is now much roomier, while costing about the same. The new body is also much stiffer, to impact a higher quality feel. This and other changes result in a couple hundred pounds more mass, but the larger engine should more than compensate. Altogether, on paper the second-generation CR-V is a vastly improved vehicle.

Styling and accommodations

But that’s on paper. What about in person? The exterior styling to my eye is quite bland. It lacks the flair of the second-generation RAV4 and new Jeep Liberty. (For my reviews of related vehicles, click on the blue hyperlinks.) But for some people, notably Honda people, this is a good thing. To their eye the CR-V is just cute and racy enough. They favor the CR-V’s “sensible” styling, styling that communicates that this is a useful vehicle driven by sensible people. I suppose the new CR-V looks a bit more rugged than the old, but compared to the average SUV, even the average compact SUV, it’s still on the cute end of the scale.

This sensible, utilitarian theme continues to the interior. For 2000 and 2001, an SE model with leather was available. For 2002, the range tops out once more with the cloth-trimmed EX. Anyone who requires leather will either have to buy just about any competitor or go aftermarket. The interior styling is similarly bereft of the racy touches found in the Toyota and Jeep. Like that of the Ford Escape, the interior design is about utility. However, unlike in the Ford, the materials and buttons used all look and feel high in quality. The combination of high quality with an absence of luxury reminds me of Mercedes interiors ante-Lexus. This combination likely appeals to the same people who like the exterior of the CR-V. Or just about any Honda for that matter. I must admit I was a bit won over by it myself.

As for the interior dimensions, the numbers don’t lie. Both the front and rear seats are nicely supportive and roomy. The latter are high enough off the floor to provide good thigh support. They also happen to recline, a feature rear seat passengers will appreciate on trips. Honda has retained a fold-up tray between the seats, and innovatively repositioned the parking brake and automatic transmission lever onto the dash. These features are strange at first, but quickly become familiar. Together, they contribute to an airy interior and the ability to walk from the front to the rear seats, much like in a minivan. Also as in a minivan, the CR-V’s floor is flat. Think function, without that minivan stigma.

Cargo room is generous. The rear seats fold flat in two steps. The spare is mounted outside, on the rear door, so it does not take away from cargo room. Just be aware that backing up into something tall enough to hit the spare will push it into the rear door and door glass, causing expensive damage.

On the road

All of this would be for naught if the CR-V was still a dog on the road. Does the new engine work wonders? Well, it depends on what your expectations are. With an automatic, like the vehicle I drove and that a substantial majority of people will buy, it’s significantly less energetic than the V6 competition from Ford, Mazda, and Saturn, especially at less than full throttle. The 2002 CR-V might approach the others in all-out acceleration, but it lacks their mid-range torque, and thus feels significantly less powerful in normal driving. It is quick enough from a stop and on flat surfaces, but on hills I found myself flooring it often. At the same time, I never quite felt the new CR-V was underpowered. The torque boost helps, yet much of this is due to the refinement with which the engine goes about working its rear end off. Even when spending much of its time at high RPM it never sounds or feels thrashy or strained. When pushed, the transmission readily downshifts to send the engine its marching orders to territory near the redline, and the engine obliges. As long as you expect unobtrusive competence rather than adolescent thrills you’ll be satisfied.

Handling remains a CR-V strong point. It feels much like a Civic, just taller. The quick steering and buttoned-down suspension lend a nimble feel, much unlike conventional truck-based SUVs and a bit better than that of the similar Ford and Mazda. In fairly fast turns the amount of roll is obvious, but generally moderate and certainly no more than any other SUV I’ve driven.

I can’t say when my driving ever engaged the all-wheel-drive system. Most of the time only the front wheels are being driven. But under hard acceleration or on slick surfaces—anything that causes the front wheels to slip—the back two are called into play automatically and transparently. Perhaps due to this all-wheel-drive system, torque steer is commendably absent despite the significant boost in engine torque. Ford, Mazda, and (soon) Saturn offer similar systems.

The ride is generally quite good. Though certainly not that of a luxury car, the CR-V’s ride lacks any of the heavy, ponderous sensations found in truck-based SUVs and even in the new competition from Jeep. It feels much like a Civic here. Some minor jitters can be felt over moderate road imperfections, but nothing jarring.

Then there is the noise level. I generally liked the Ford Escape, but found it far too noisy. Here the CR-V clearly leads, with wind and road noise levels much like those in, once again, a Civic. I suspect the new body design helps here. Combined with the good ride and supportive seats, this fairly low noise level suggests the CR-V would serve well on long drives.

Overall, on the road the CR-V is a very competent, very refined, once again sensible performer.

Last words

A CR-V is about as sensible as an SUV can be. It has a roomy versatile interior, nimble handling, and fuel mileage in the low 20s. The added torque and refinement of the second-generation design further enhance its utility. The Toyota and Jeep offer more flash, but both embody tradeoffs in on-road performance that will turn off most compact SUV buyers. The RAV4 remains a flashy toy for younger buyers. The much heavier Jeep gets much worse fuel economy and has a more ponderous, tippier feel despite its nicely firm steering. Though its off-road performance is much better than that of car-based cute utes, for people who won’t be leaving the pavement it is hard to make a rational argument for. The only rational disadvantage that the CR-V continues to possess is power. It still lags the sixes in the Ford, Mazda, and upcoming Saturn. Here the additional refinement of the Honda will tip the balance for many buyers. It has the feel of a higher quality, more durable vehicle. The Ford and Mazda are especially noisy. The new Saturn VUE in V6 form may present the stiffest competition, but will probably also lack the Honda’s quality feel even if it matches its noise levels. I feel another test drive coming on when the VUE shows up at dealers in coming weeks, stay tuned…

Update: I have now also test driven the VUE. My comparison of the Escape, CR-V and VUE is listed under the 2002 Escape here.

Further update: I have now driven the 2003 Subaru Forester. In my review of that vehicle I discuss for whom it might be a better choice than the CR-V.

A Note on Honda CR-V Reliability

I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.

Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy a CR-V rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Honda CR-V reliability comparisons.

Before I can report results, I need data on all cars--not just the CR-V--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. Non-participants will have to pay an access fee.

For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.

A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.
Amount Paid (US$): 21000
Model Year: 2002
Model and Options: EX automatic