Pre-Facelift Model Potential purchaser

Discussion in '2nd Generation (2002-2006)' started by David ap, Monday 28th Jan, 2013.

  1. David ap New Member Getting Started

    Hi all.

    I've found this forum as me and the other half are pretty set on a CR-V as a family car.
    Currently have a 2005 Corsa for those duties and it's just too small now we have a kid and she's dead against estates.

    So, we have about 7-10k to spend, the only essential being auto as she can't drive manual. Not really after diesel either and don't think you can get that and auto anyway.

    I'm happy about every aspect of the car bar some economy concerns so wanted to get some feedback on that if possible.
    Use will be local stuff for 3 days a week and a 40 mile commute each day 2 days a week.

    Am I likely to feel sick with the cost of running it or will it just be a marginal real world increase.

    Aside from that, is it worth the stretch to the newish 2008 shape? Like the fancy new dash and the looks, but tbh the 2006 I drove on the weekend was perfectly fine.

    Sorry to just arrive and drop a load of questions, but it's always been the best route I've found. If anyone wants advice on buying an ZM coupe I can help with that :Smile:


  2. Ezeetrucker Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Baz Lincolnshire
    Welcome along D, nothing wrong with the second generation CR V, but I personally prefer the more rounded off look of the third gen (2008)
    I run a third gen diesel, so can't really comment re fuel consumption, but sure someone will be along soon to help with that.
  3. David ap New Member Getting Started

    Cheers, Ez.

    I do prefer the 3rd Generation, so much more modern inside too, but the last of line facelift gen2 which I think went up to 2007 seems ideal and a good few k cheaper.
    Seems like the 3rd Generation is J bracket in tax vs k for the previous one, but the cost diff is negligible - £20 quid I think.

    I think getting the Gen 2 would let us be more relaxed with it getting a bit dirty too. With kids you can't afford to be too precious about cars.
  4. Ezeetrucker Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Baz Lincolnshire
    Another downside of the second over the third gen is MPG, supposedly improved on the third gen, on paper anyway
  5. richsprint Account Closed. ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

    The 2nd Generation is pretty old now in looks and driving feel, also doesnt handle too well, so get a 3rd Generation if you can, resale will also be better. The 3rd Generation drives like a car, whereas the 2nd Generation is up on stilts like an old landrover.

    Accord petrol auto tourers are in that price bracket also, although not as spacious, £10k would probably get a 2009 with average miles, 36k or so.
  6. David ap New Member Getting Started

    I did notice it's marginally more economical yes and I guess that would make it more saleable too.
    I've noticed it's possible to get a gen 3 for about 10k, but wonder if that's the real dregs and if I'd be better getting a top spec low mileage gen 2 for 7k?

    Is there anything I should look out for specifically on either gen(petrol, auto).

    Thanks again for all the feedback - appreciate it.
  7. excel monkey Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom Epsom
    The CR-V is a much larger vehicle than a Corsa - it can't hope to compete on running costs.

    How many miles do you reckon you will do in it? It is almost certainly going to cost more to fuel, tax and insure than your Corsa. I reckon you should expect 25mpg from a petrol auto CR-V, maybe 30mpg if you're a steady driver. If you do 10,000 miles a year, that's at least £1000 more than it would cost in a Corsa. I've been getting 22mpg from my manual CR-V recently, but data on the Fuelly website (Honda CR-V MPG Reports | Fuelly) suggests most owners manage to get 25-29 MPG.

    Road tax will be £270 a year for a 2nd Generation CR-V. Maybe a bit cheaper for a 3rd Generation. Insurance shouldn't be too bad - maybe 20-30% more than a supermini.

    The CR-V is a great car, and very versatile, but a small-engined Civic or Accord is perhaps a better choice if you don't need 4WD and running costs are top priority.
  8. David ap New Member Getting Started

    Many thanks for the response excel.

    I reckon we'd do 8k max, possibly less in it.
    Local driving most of the week and a 20mile each way commute on the motorway twice a week.

    To be honest the Corsa isn't that great on juice - it's a 1.4 auto and I doubt we get more than 30 MPG anyway. You often find little cars have to be driven harder to get anywhere and then your consumption gets hammered so I'm hoping that real world consumption won't be that different. It's also quite costly to tax considering, and the gen 3 CR-V is not really any more in that respect.
    Admittedly it's cheap as chips in every other way and has been a fab car to run in that respect but too small with a family.

    We defo don't need 4WD, but we do need something that's easy to get kids in and out of and lob stuff in the back and the CR-V seems ideal for that. We defo don't want a people carrier in the traditional sense, and my wife has an aversion to estates - so what's left I ask ya!!!

    Rambling aside, I just don't want to take the plunge and find out I've committed to 50% more running costs.

    Based on the above, what do you think?
  9. excel monkey Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom Epsom
    Sounds like the fuel will be the only real incremental expense in that case. Like a lot of manufacturers, Honda is doing its best to encourage people to stay in the dealer network for servicing with fixed price offers. Have a look at the "Owners" section of the Honda website.

    Really recommend the CR-V for the use you describe. I have a 20 month old son, and he doesn't travel light. The boot space in the CR-V is very good, it comfortably seats three people in the back, and the ride height makes it easy to access child seats. Think of it as a people carrier that doesn't look like a people carrier.

    I've only had my CR-V (manual 2nd Generation) for a month but I'm really pleased with it so far. Mine was bought as a backup car to carry loads and offer more rear space than our E90 3-series, and I don't expect to do a lot of miles in it. My wife is a die-hard German car fan, but she has been using the CR-V a lot more than I expected, especially during the recent snowy weather.
  10. Quacker Banned ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Vauxhall Zafira. Cheap as chips to buy and run. Could probably buy a fairly new one for your budget. Not an estate car but an MPV. Not sure if it is available as an automatic or how common that option would have been.

    Or a Honda FR-V.
  11. Ichiban Founder Staff Team

    England CJ Leeds
    Sod GM the clue is in the name General .. so so .. iffy .. you sure.. you fool..sucker..

    FR-V - engineers car no contest :Hooray:
  12. Robbie Valued Contributor ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

    Robert Lancashire
    An Accord Tourer could fit the bill. They are as cheap as chips now second hand, Look for a pre-2008 with the 2.2 ICTDI engine. I used to get 38 - 40 MPG running around locally, and 54+ with a full load on motorways.