Pre-Purchase CR-V auto - bad or good

Discussion in '2nd Generation (2002-2006)' started by Paulcornwall, Sunday 15th Feb, 2015.

  1. Paulcornwall Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom Paul Penzance
    After the father seen our FR-V he's now sold his pug and looking for a CR-V. I have no experience of this model but there's a nice looking one in ebay but with an AUTO box. Should he stay clear of the auto when teamed with 2l petrol? Is there anything we should watch out for? Your help much appreciated.
  2. DeviateDefiant Co-Founder Staff Team

    United Kingdom Leo Northants
    Honda's automatic gearboxes are generally sublime, though I'd imagine a K20/R20 A/T would be pretty slow off the line and feeling a bit underwhelming in general. The CR-V chassis does suit a more torquey low-end from a diesel, though of the course the petrols are king for reliability.
    honda_saj likes this.
  3. excel monkey Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom Epsom
    Auto is slower, but suits the car better. I have a manual, but wish I had gone for an auto, as the gearing is higher so the car cruises at lower rpms on the motorway. The column shift on the auto also means the car has a completely walkthrough cabin.

    From browsing used car ads when looking for my 2nd Generation CR-V, most of the better looked after cars seem to be autos. They probably attract an older and more careful owner. [/generalisation]
    Racy Jace, colinwade55 and FirstHonda like this.
  4. herbie147 Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    I bought an auto. First time car with an auto box and I don't regret my choice, I feel quite relaxed driving it, a nice change :Smile:
    honda_saj, FirstHonda and SpeedyGee like this.
  5. roelfarm Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom Mike Cheltenham
    I have a CR-V gen 3 auto. It's not a boy racers car....but there again I am not a boy racer. Fine as a cruiser and excellent with the Cruise Control on. In town I find it doesn't like to slow down on engine breaking so I just drop put it into 2nd gear in 30 and under speed zones. This is my 4th auto Honda I love 'em
    honda_saj and FirstHonda like this.
  6. FirstHonda Moderator Staff Team

    United Kingdom Ed Wiltshire
    ^^ Depends what you are used to, I think. BTW I'm talking about the 4th Generation here, but some of the comments should remain relevant.

    I had read in all sorts of places that the 2.0litre petrol was "underpowered" but couldn't understand it when I drove it. Still can't. Neither can any of the people who have been in it so far - even with the "economy" button active, although you do need to give it a bit of a kick in some cases when this is active :Laughing:. Mine always is, which shows my driving style I guess...

    Smooth, very quiet, early 40s MPG on a run - I never thought I'd say this, but I'm NEVER going back to diesel :Grin:

    The best advice @Paulcornwall is to drive one before you buy.

    As I have said before, if the driver has a more "aggressive" style and enjoys accelerating hard off the line every time, then it may not suit. It is a car for cruising in comfort. Having said that, my sister and her husband went from an Audi A6 3.0litre diesel and while they accept the 2.0litre petrol CR-V is nowhere near as quick, they still love it and don't regret the change not least because the Honda isn't regularly broken!

    In terms of the gearbox, I've only driven automatic for 25+ years. The Honda 5 speed is reliable and simple, with ratios well matched to the engine IMHO. Ignore the motoring press - they seem to "need" to drive everywhere at full throttle, and generally favour manual 'boxes, so are by definition negative about most autos. Where they are just wrong (again, my opinion based on lots of experience) is in their praise for VAG DSG 'boxes. Ignoring the terrible reliability for a moment, the ones I have owned and driven are constantly hunting around for the right gear, and are very slow off the line - worse with auto stop, a combination that I found dangerous when pulling out of a junction, as the car:

    a) pauses
    b) then starts to go
    c) then tries to work out which gear is right, & then...
    d) ...if it decides it needs another gear, it pauses again before finally getting going.

    That c2 seconds of delay just isn't something I find acceptable. God only knows how they can be so fawned over in the press.

    Some other comments you may find useful on this thread:

    Pre-Purchase - New CR-V - Petrol or Diesel

    Cobh likes this.
  7. Pottermus Valued Contributor ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    I don't think the auto is any slower than the manual in truth. You do have a far superior and smooth ride in the auto, whereas the manual is a bit jerky as you try and get something out of the 2.0 engine.

    One thing that you need to know is that you will struggle to get above 25mpg.
    steve4536 likes this.
  8. FirstHonda Moderator Staff Team

    United Kingdom Ed Wiltshire
    ^^ That's a good point to consider. My brother had a (new, in 1999) 1st Generation CR-V 2.0litre petrol/auto and ended up selling it due to the economy.

    I find it amazing that the current 4th generation can be so much more economical after just a few short years of progress.
  9. roelfarm Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom Mike Cheltenham
    "One thing that you need to know is that you will struggle to get above 25mpg."

    You are not far out with my current fuel consumption. which is 27.3 MPG... on the Gen 3 ....2litre petrol with an auto box. The previous 2nd Generation gave me 28.4mpg
  10. Pottermus Valued Contributor ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    Out of the two, I'd have the Auto. Purely for how they drive better than the manual.

    Saying that I've just advised my dad to buy the manual to replace his HR-V lol
  11. Tom Horlick. Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom Tosher Dartford
    To Ed In Buckinghamshire, getting the low 40s MPG from a 2ltr auto CR-V 2nd or 3rd Generation (Not in a million years)....
  12. FirstHonda Moderator Staff Team

    United Kingdom Ed Wiltshire
    ^^Quite probably - which is why if you read the thread I make the comment about the 1st Generation that my brother had, that he sold due to the poor economy.

    My car is a 4th Generation - you can see that in my signature - hence my comment below. I get early to mid-40s MPG on a run without issue.

    Am I missing something? :crazyeyes:
  13. Tom Horlick. Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom Tosher Dartford
    Sorry To Ed of Buckinghamshire I didn't read the thread properly, I didn't realise you were talking about the 4th Generation which are better on economy, as I know they member....
  14. brian62c Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Wales Brian Haverfordwest
    We had a gen 1 auto CR-V, which I loved, and when it died bought a gen 2 manual - and I hate it. Luckily it's my wife's car and she's not bothered but I really miss the auto. Don't think there's much difference in fuel economy between the two. I find the manual shift quite clumsy and heavy. The auto was so smooth. Just saying.
  15. Torquemadder Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    David Lisburn
    I don't understand why Honda put the 2.0 petrol in the 2nd Generation CR-V. They are gutless. Same engine with 204bhp in a Prelude had 138lb/ft of torque. The reason it has 204bhp is because it revs so high, BHP being a figure derived from torque x RPM divided by sommat (I forget the exact formula lol). There's an old saying - BHP sells cars, torque wins races. Also helps get heavy things moving easier
  16. SpeedyGee Administrator Staff Team

    England Speedy Birmingham
    That's odd, I don't find that all @Torquemadder, the K20 in my FR-V is plenty pokey enough to comfortably shift the big old bus around.
    The CR-V is probably roughly the same weight as the FR-V so should fair the same in that.

    Of course compared to a diesel lump it will feel different as a diesel has low down torque, it's still does the job quite effortlessly though.
    honda_saj and Torquemadder like this.
  17. steve4536 Senior Member ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Mines a 3rd generation 2L petrol Auto which must be the same box as a 4th Generation Autobox. I can't praise it enough. Fuel consumption around the houses a good 28mpg. Longer runs using motorways and cruise control 40mpg Plus.
    I wouldn't mind going head to head with a manual box on a track. I reckon the auto would blow it away.
    honda_saj and FirstHonda like this.
  18. colinwade55 Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom Jake Kirkcudbright
    My 02 CR-V is my second Honda auto box petrol car. The gear changes are seamless, only the engine note change is discernible. The power of the 2litre petrol engine is put down safely but launches the car effortlessly, throttle pressure controls how aggressive you want to be with acceleration, but I have found that gentle pressure gives best results. This is a luxury car and delivers it's power with a refined feel. MPG is on average 28 but on long motorway journeys at a constant 70ish, 35 MPG was achieved. Pretty good for a 4 x 4.
    FirstHonda likes this.
  19. I don't know what cars people are comparing the CR-V 2 litre petrols to when they are saying they are sluggish.
    Coming from a 220bhp diesel car, also auto, I expected it to feel slower by a mile but it doesn't. OK its never going to win at the traffic light grand prix but it has more than enough to never feel underpowered.

    Around town the MPG is not that much worse than a 2.0 auto accord I owned a few years back. Its costing me a extra 70p a day to run the petrol engine rather than a diesel. I know which I would choose every day.
  20. Islandphil51 New Member Getting Started

    United Kingdom Phil Yarmouth
    I have just bought my first CR-V a 2nd Generation 2005 se. I am really impressed with it I've driven Scorpio 2.8 & Toyota autos this is quieter than my Scorpio smoother than the Toyota the auto is superb MPG so far 28.4 over the last 200 miles much better than the others well pleased
    honda_saj, andy83 and FirstHonda like this.