|
|
|
|
 |
blue99si
 |
|
I was leaning towards the purchase of a new 2010 CRV EXL AWD with navi prior to the launch of the new Cross Tour EX-L AWD......Which one would you buy?
I need AWD, would like 25+ mpg, towing (two snowmobiles), some utility, and plan to utilize this vehicle for an 85+ mile per day commute (mostly highway with horrendous snowfall amounts in the winter)....
Where would you put your money?
|
HONDA AFVM
|
|
blue99si wrote:
I was leaning towards the purchase of a new 2010 CRV EXL AWD with navi prior to the launch of the new Cross Tour EX-L AWD......Which one would you buy?
I need AWD, would like 25+ mpg, towing (two snowmobiles), some utility, and plan to utilize this vehicle for an 85+ mile per day commute (mostly highway with horrendous snowfall amounts in the winter)....
Where would you put your money?
|
I would go with the Crosstour for $7,000 more if you can afford the coin. The comfort and handling are LEAPS and BOUNDS above the CRV. The Navi, the Dash, the Sound system, the LOOK, the way the rear seats fold forward, it's SO nice. If you are not hauling HUGE items and just transporting kids and their stuff around, you have PLENTY of space.
I know Grand Rapids MI, been there many times and it SNOWS!, the CT would be GREAT! Now that I have driven it and put it through it's paces, in has everything over the CRV.
|
PGH
|
|
Save the 7K and buy the CRV. Better looking, tows the same and gets better MPG and has the same AWD sysyem (RT4WD) I'm not sure about ground clearance but the CRV could have an edge. Also, the CRV is in it's last two years on production so most if not all the bugs have been worked out. I would also think the less expensive CRV would have a slight edge in holding it's value better over the long haul.
|
blue99si
|
|
I was really impressed with the fit and finish of the Cross Tour. I agree with the back seat comment as well.....one has to wonder why it took this long to come up with something like this. The dealership up here raved about the AWD handling of the CT. They said that customers and buyers were raving about the lower ride height vs. the CRV and Pilot and said that they were extremely impressed with the handling of this vehicle when it got nasty. The CT's longer wheel base would also improve the ride on the highway as well as improve the AWD's function.
Up until the CT hit the market, I figured the CRV was the vehicle for me. My wife has an 03 CRV and it is excellent in the snow. We had a 99 CRV as well and the 03 will run circles around that vehicle. I do like the CRV and the bump in HP is a definite improvement that makes this vehicle attractive to me.
I do not know....maybe I need to wait for our next snowfall and go up to the dealer for a drive in the white stuff......
|
blue99si
|
|
PGH wrote:
Save the 7K and buy the CRV. Better looking, tows the same and gets better MPG and has the same AWD sysyem (RT4WD) I'm not sure about ground clearance but the CRV could have an edge. Also, the CRV is in it's last two years on production so most if not all the bugs have been worked out. I would also think the less expensive CRV would have a slight edge in holding it's value better over the long haul.
|
Re-sale is definitely on my mind as I am going to be driving whatever I end up with and will be putting on some serious miles. The CRV has extremely good re-sale. That is definitely something to consider.
|
JeffX
|
|
blue99si wrote:
I was leaning towards the purchase of a new 2010 CRV EXL AWD with navi prior to the launch of the new Cross Tour EX-L AWD......Which one would you buy?
I need AWD, would like 25+ mpg, towing (two snowmobiles), some utility, and plan to utilize this vehicle for an 85+ mile per day commute (mostly highway with horrendous snowfall amounts in the winter)....
Where would you put your money?
|
CrossTour is a far more sophisticated, more comfortable machine. 25+mpg is no problem on the highway. It is much quicker than a CR-V, rides better, quieter, is more comfortable for long distance driving. I like the Utility of the CR-V more, but the CrossTour drives much more like a car than any of Honda's other CUV options.
|
80honda
|
|
blue99si wrote:
I was leaning towards the purchase of a new 2010 CRV EXL AWD with navi prior to the launch of the new Cross Tour EX-L AWD......Which one would you buy?
I need AWD, would like 25+ mpg, towing (two snowmobiles), some utility, and plan to utilize this vehicle for an 85+ mile per day commute (mostly highway with horrendous snowfall amounts in the winter)....
Where would you put your money?
|
I would pick the Crosstour.
Better looking.
Great cross country touring comfort.
The LONG flat load floor would suit my cargo needs better.
MPG are similar so I'd go for the 271hp Crosstour.
|
Trip
|
|
Personally I would go with the CRV. Since you're already familiar with the CRV, the newest model would make sense.
IMO the interior is much nicer. I lived with the Accord's mess of a dashboard for over a year and the CRV's layout is by far the nicest in Honda’s entire current lineup. It's sleek, logical, very well thought out. The MID is great - informative at a glance and the exterior temp is not hidden.
You get much more storage in the CRV's smaller foot print: dual glove boxes, center console, center armrest, under seat, 4 large door bins, max cargo area 72.9 cu ft versus the CT's 51 and the rear cargo area can be partitioned into a dual level storage for even more space. The rear seats also split 40/20/40 and they can tumble and fold for a flat load surface, too. For as big as the CT is, you'd think there would be more nooks and crannies.
And just as many features: BT, heated leather, moonroof, USB, auto on and off headlights, 10 way power seat, reclining rear seats, back up camera.
Long term, the CRV's engine has a timing chain that won't need replacement.
For $7,000 less, you’re getting a lot more for your money.
The CRV is an efficient, well thought out vehicle that does more with less - $7,000 and over 500 lbs less to be exact (3554 lbs vs 4070 lbs). I thought the old slogan was "man max, machine min" not "man min, machine porky". :)~ The CRV typifies what Honda used to do best - lean, functional, efficient vehicles.
CRV is where my money would go without a second thought.
|
Grace141
|
|
Without considering money, I'd also go with the Crosstour because of the additional power and smoother ride. And under normal conditions my '03 CRV never got better than 24.5mpg combined.
I'm cheap though and the extra money up front combined with my really liking the current CRV would probably result in my going with it over the Crosstour. The CRV is a very functional and practical machine that is easy to like.
|
blue99si
|
|
Trip wrote:
Personally I would go with the CRV. Since you're already familiar with the CRV, the newest model would make sense.
IMO the interior is much nicer. I lived with the Accord's mess of a dashboard for over a year and the CRV's layout is by far the nicest in Honda’s entire current lineup. It's sleek, logical, very well thought out. The MID is great - informative at a glance and the exterior temp is not hidden.
You get much more storage in the CRV's smaller foot print: dual glove boxes, center console, center armrest, under seat, 4 large door bins, max cargo area 72.9 cu ft versus the CT's 51 and the rear cargo area can be partitioned into a dual level storage for even more space. The rear seats also split 40/20/40 and they can tumble and fold for a flat load surface, too. For as big as the CT is, you'd think there would be more nooks and crannies.
And just as many features: BT, heated leather, moonroof, USB, auto on and off headlights, 10 way power seat, reclining rear seats, back up camera.
Long term, the CRV's engine has a timing chain that won't need replacement.
For $7,000 less, you’re getting a lot more for your money.
The CRV is an efficient, well thought out vehicle that does more with less - $7,000 and over 500 lbs less to be exact (3554 lbs vs 4070 lbs). I thought the old slogan was "man max, machine min" not "man min, machine porky". :)~ The CRV typifies what Honda used to do best - lean, functional, efficient vehicles.
CRV is where my money would go without a second thought.
|
Good points Trip.....another nice thing about the CRV...is that with the money I saved buying the less expensive vehicle, I could use the savings to invest in some nice steel wheels with Blizzaks....man now that would be a great snow machine.
I bet the CT is good in the snow as well.....I am going to have to take one for a spin the next time we get some accumulation. Thanks for the feedback.
|
blue99si
|
|
|
The timing belt vs timing chain is a good question. Does anyone know if the Cross Tour has a timing belt or timing chain?
|
Powered by Honda
|
|
CRV
I cant stand the fact that Honda took the Oddessy's grill and 'tacted' it on to an accord. A car which is 3 sizes down from it.
Transplating a grill of a van to a car is fail imo.
CR-V is a GEM and a Beauty. Stare at the lines and see the detail.
|
Frogger
|
|
Have to get the snows regardless of either vehicle for a commute like that.
$7k is a lot of money, in this day and age, have to consider that. The CR-V is tried and true, and by you personally.
In between the two, the new Subaru Outback CVT will give you a better AWD system, better mileage, more cargo room, comparable bling and probably a split between the interiors.
|
98EX4cyl
|
|
Frogger wrote:
Have to get the snows regardless of either vehicle for a commute like that.
$7k is a lot of money, in this day and age, have to consider that. The CR-V is tried and true, and by you personally.
In between the two, the new Subaru Outback CVT will give you a better AWD system, better mileage, more cargo room, comparable bling and probably a split between the interiors.
|
Agree with Frogger, you should also test the Outback as an in between.
Since you live in Michigan, I'm surprised you don't have any American nameplates on your radar. When my sister first moved to K-zoo she bought an Explorer so as not to be the only person with at least one US brand vehicle (her other car was a prelude). Guess times have changed and even Michigan has caught up with the rest of the nation?
|
Mike Freitas
|
|
blue99si wrote:
The timing belt vs timing chain is a good question. Does anyone know if the Cross Tour has a timing belt or timing chain?
|
K series engine= timing chain (4 cyl)
J series engines= timing belt (6 cyl)
|
chavv
|
|
Can anyone give a link with dimension/stats comparison between CT and CR-V ?
Given the smaller cargo area, CT looks like a "image" vehicle, not a "workhorse"
|
Frogger
|
|
chavv wrote:
Can anyone give a link with dimension/stats comparison between CT and CR-V ?
Given the smaller cargo area, CT looks like a "image" vehicle, not a "workhorse"
|
Honda comparison
|
A77
|
|
Is either vehicle capable of towing a trailer with 2 snowmobiles on it? Well, I am sure both are but I wonder if that load would exceed 1500 lbs. The CRV is a much more efficient design, well proven both in terms of reliability and resale. CT resale is totally unknown. But even though the 2010 CRV is much improved it is not a luxurious ride - the Crosstour is. CT has more power, is quieter (than any other Honda), but has nowhere near the usable space of the CRV - unless load length is crucial - the only measurement where the CT is better. Price difference is only $3300 in Canada by the way. CRVs will go longer between servicing as well as lower service costs. Might the RDX be an alternative? Venza and Outback are other obvious possibilities.
Sometimes these decisions are not down to logical considerations but how you feel after driving both of them. This is something you are going to spend a lot of time in. Just drive both and then decide for yourself which is going to brighten your day the most (though $7000 buys a lot of holidays away from that snow!).
|
blue99si
|
|
Frogger wrote:
Have to get the snows regardless of either vehicle for a commute like that.
$7k is a lot of money, in this day and age, have to consider that. The CR-V is tried and true, and by you personally.
In between the two, the new Subaru Outback CVT will give you a better AWD system, better mileage, more cargo room, comparable bling and probably a split between the interiors.
|
Frogger....I am not a huge fan of the new Subaru body style....seems a little big and boxy to me. It reminds me of the old Buick stationwagons with wood down the side....
|
sunnyrodeo
|
|
|
I also think towing should be the first thing to look at. I am not so sure how CRV would do towing 2 snow mobiles + trailer (how heavy?). I would think CRV would struggle pulling them uphill (if any). Plus it will put alot of strain on the powertrain. I would say CRV is better choice than CT as long as it meets your towing expectations. But if you plan to tow alot to the mountains (I am assuming that's where you go snowmobiling), CT would be a better choice. Maybe 6cyl rav4? It will be similar (gas, resale, reliability etc) to crv except for the 6cyl thing. Does toyota still make them?
|
Stuki
|
|
A77 wrote:
Is either vehicle capable of towing a trailer with 2 snowmobiles on it? Well, I am sure both are but I wonder if that load would exceed 1500 lbs. The CRV is a much more efficient design, well proven both in terms of reliability and resale. CT resale is totally unknown. But even though the 2010 CRV is much improved it is not a luxurious ride - the Crosstour is. CT has more power, is quieter (than any other Honda), but has nowhere near the usable space of the CRV - unless load length is crucial - the only measurement where the CT is better. Price difference is only $3300 in Canada by the way. CRVs will go longer between servicing as well as lower service costs. Might the RDX be an alternative? Venza and Outback are other obvious possibilities.
Sometimes these decisions are not down to logical considerations but how you feel after driving both of them. This is something you are going to spend a lot of time in. Just drive both and then decide for yourself which is going to brighten your day the most (though $7000 buys a lot of holidays away from that snow!).
|
Towing two snowmobiles sounds a bit on the heavy side for these two. Particularly as snowmobiles are generally towed when there is snow on the road, adds a good bit of weight rear, and both these have 4wd systems designed for part time, get out of jail, use, not heavy, constant pulling.
For a much more serious winter puller in the same price range as the CRV, look at the FJ Cruiser. V6, Torsen center, and great ground clearance, though definitely a truck. To get a center diff on the new 4runner, you need to buy the limited, which is $40,000+, but if you can still find '09's, they all have Torsens. The transfer case 2010 4runners are great for serious storms and off road, but less optimal for daily use on mostly dry roads with ice and snow on north facing uphills.
|
blue99si
|
|
sunnyrodeo wrote:
I also think towing should be the first thing to look at. I am not so sure how CRV would do towing 2 snow mobiles + trailer (how heavy?). I would think CRV would struggle pulling them uphill (if any). Plus it will put alot of strain on the powertrain. I would say CRV is better choice than CT as long as it meets your towing expectations. But if you plan to tow alot to the mountains (I am assuming that's where you go snowmobiling), CT would be a better choice. Maybe 6cyl rav4? It will be similar (gas, resale, reliability etc) to crv except for the 6cyl thing. Does toyota still make them?
|
The tow rating will be close for sure. Our snowmobiles weigh in the 420 to 450 range each. I think as long as I stick with an aluminum trailer I should be around 1300 lbs. I am also planning to use load leveling bars as this will keep either vehicles 4 wheels planted firmly on the snowcovered roads. This is especially key as both vehicles utilize practically the same AWD assist. I really like the hydraulic AWD system that Honda uses. Not only is it simple but, requires far less overall maintenance vs. the traditional AWD's like the Pilots. Our 2003 CRV is an extremely capable vehicle for on-road snow travel.
As for Toyota.....I have looked at them in the past. The Rav has almost made it into our garage a couple of times. What keeps me from considering this vehicle is the rear door vs. the hatch configuration that both the CRV and the CT have. I do not like having a rear door vs. a hatch. This is the one thing that I hate the most about our current 2003 CRV. Hauling anything that is long is a pain. This is what I like most about the CRV and CT. Function, Function, Function.....I have owned a couple of Jeep Cherokee's in the past....what I loved most about these vehicles was their function. They were extremely flexible and functional vehicles as long as you have a good set of wrenches and a parts store near by. Fixing cars was fine when I was younger but, as I have grown older I have found it is far more important to purchase a vehicle that has both function and reliability. Another vehicle that I am contemplating is the new Chevy Equinox....I like the styling but, am not sure if I would be happy with this vehicle when it has 100,000 miles on it.....this is something that I have learned, makes a Honda far different than most other vehicles and companies.
|
06PILOTEx
|
|
|
I know EPA mileage is a concern of yours, however an LX 4wd Pilot seems like it would meet all your othere needs, and the hitch is standard. and you can get one for mid 20's USD. you can even get the EX 4wd for right at 30k. We have both a Pilot and Cross tour right now, the pilot is great, as is the CT, but I would not consider towing with the CT. It truly is luxury, the pilot has no problem with towing, and the handling is pretty decent for its size and weight, gas mileage is about 23 on hwy if you keep in around 70.
|
britye
|
|
Last week I sold my 2007 Ridgeline and I actually went to look for a CRV. I took one out for a drive etc., but then I drove the Crosstour.
No contest for me, I bought the Crosstour then and there.
I got the 4WD, no navi (just couldn't see spending the extra 2K for it), Black on Black.
I am impressed with the Crosstour so far and I know the 4WD will come in handy up here in Canada!!
I don't tow anything but sure do like the get up and go of the Crosstour.
That's my 2 cents worth......
|
GotHondaOdy
|
|
2010s You Should Think Twice About
Honda Accord Crosstour
Given the popularity of its coupe and sedan siblings, much was expected of the new Accord Crosstour, an affordable midsize SUV. Sadly, it doesn’t match the hype. It’s luxurious and is backed by Honda’s superb history of reliability, but commands an expensive price tag. Plus, with only 25.7 to 51.3 cubic feet of cargo space, it doesn’t provide much utility. Critics are also split over its odd exterior styling. Because of these cons, the Accord Crosstour ranks near the bottom of its class.
- U.S. News
|
80honda
|
|
GotHondaOdy wrote:
2010s You Should Think Twice About
Honda Accord Crosstour
Given the popularity of its coupe and sedan siblings, much was expected of the new Accord Crosstour, an affordable midsize SUV. Sadly, it doesn’t match the hype. It’s luxurious and is backed by Honda’s superb history of reliability, but commands an expensive price tag. Plus, with only 25.7 to 51.3 cubic feet of cargo space, it doesn’t provide much utility. Critics are also split over its odd exterior styling. Because of these cons, the Accord Crosstour ranks near the bottom of its class.
- U.S. News
|
Do you base your purchase decision on the "Opinion" of the reviewer at U.S. News?
|
P54
|
|
GotHondaOdy wrote:
2010s You Should Think Twice About
Honda Accord Crosstour
Given the popularity of its coupe and sedan siblings, much was expected of the new Accord Crosstour, an affordable midsize SUV. Sadly, it doesn’t match the hype. It’s luxurious and is backed by Honda’s superb history of reliability, but commands an expensive price tag. Plus, with only 25.7 to 51.3 cubic feet of cargo space, it doesn’t provide much utility. Critics are also split over its odd exterior styling. Because of these cons, the Accord Crosstour ranks near the bottom of its class.
- U.S. News
|
So US "bad" NEWS determines the fate of a car? There are cars with less cargo space than 25.7 cubic feet that cost more than CT. With the logic of US NEWS they belong near the top of the list. And more expensive cars with more than 51.3 cubic feet must also belong near the top. Being between 25.7-51.3 cubic feet drags it to the bottom, helped by the odd styling, and being luxuries as they say, they find it too expensive?
So far I have only seen good reports from people who actually bought one.
People have different needs, if they are met and the vehicle is a quality one it obviously belong near the top of the list. See and try the vehicle for yourselves, if it meets your needs and price is affordable, then few vehicles has "Honda's superb history of reliability." Sounds like a winner!
If you like the look don't listen to the critics, did you ever ask your neighbors if they like the look of your spouse?
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] |
| |
|
![[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}
