2010 Honda CRV
Last Updated:
The new front end that I posted earlier a few weeks ago.
But this time it’s official.
Not sure it’s an improvement. It just looks more “chromey”.
The rest of the car is mostly the same.
Maybe the US version will get a small boost in power, but it’s not really needed.
Unfortunately the cheap interior should carry on unchanged….
dude the interior is not cheap.. everything fits together so well. Yes, there's a lot of hard plastic, but its not shiny crap, and its meant to withstand hard use. This isn't a luxury car. I own a 2008 CR-V EX-L with Nav and 4wd and yes its very nice, but not luxury. It's meant to be practical and useful. If I wanted luxury I would have gone for the RDX.
haha
looks like they're changing the grill back to the 02-04 generation.
Vince,
Do you ever NOT complain? geez, im gonna quit coming to your page, all you ever do is complain how u dont like the car. So whiny.
Looks like a GM-style "freshining" tweaking the old design just enough to be able to say it's "new". (–And I thought the CR-V couldn't get any uglier; I admit I was wrong.) Regarding the dude who said "the interior is not cheap…there's a lot of hard plastic, but its not shiny crap, and its meant to withstand hard use" (a rationalization if I ever heard one.) It's actually the EXACT same matt finish polyvinylchloride material used in Chevy's entry-level silverado, aveo, several Kia/Hyundai models, and the lesser Dodges like caliber and (entry-level) Dakota, not to mention Corolla, Camry; et. al. I'm a little suprised that after all this time, Honda is still stumbling around in the dark when it comes to good design and tastefull styling. They're all over the place from one model to the next. They've apparently abandoned their past practice of putting a slightly better interior into a lesser (but not less expensive) model to give the illusion of quality. Mabey too many consumers have gotten wise to that one.
Vince, maybe the 'cheap interior' comment is directed at the DX model? I own an EX-Leather and I find the interior pretty nice, certainly not 'cheap'. Lots of critics bash this car, but truth-be-told, it outsells all the other small SUVs. Wonder why THAT is?
Vince, I don't know why you keep on calling the interior "cheap".
Go compare it to a Rogue or a RAV4, the fit and finish and quality of materials is far superior to those I mentioned.
I really don't understand why you would call it cheap.
Wow, just when I thought they couldn't make this turd look worse. Honda must have hired the lead designer from Ssangyong.
the RDX i sat in felt as cheap as the CR-V…durable doesn't have to mean hard plastic.
Finally! I always hated the styling of the CR-V….this new grille looks a WHOLE lot better….still hate the overall design. though.
Cheap didn't come to my mind when I sat in my neighbor's new, loaded 2009 CR-V. I own a 2001 LX CR-V. Now that's a cheap-looking interior.
it outsells all the other small SUVs. Wonder why THAT is? HERE'S WHY: It's called MARKETING. Not quality, not engineering, and definitely not "appealing to the KNOWLEDGEABLE car affectionado". Truth be told, most are bought by women. Women who spend more time picking out a $20 dress then they ever would evaluating a $20,000 car. That's the target. The UNinformed car buyer. And it's a MUCH BIGGER market than say, the market for folks who know the difference between a unibody CUV & a body-on-frame SUV. That's why the guy who made Edsels is still making money today and the guy who made Dusenburgs ISN'T!
In this photo, the front end looks cleaner than what we had since late 2006. There was too much clutter before, now it's back to nice and simple (except for the headlights….why is it that the last gen's refresh involved quad headlights…which is the same deal here).
these little suckers ride harshly, are noisy and are cheaply finished. Remember, GM outsold everyone forever and were never known for good quality.
these little suckers ride harshly, are noisy and are cheaply finished.
These are amazingly reliable vehicles that ride quite nicely. I think your opinion or sources are wrong. Either that or you're a liar.
"HERE'S WHY: It's called MARKETING. Not quality, not engineering, and definitely not "appealing to the KNOWLEDGEABLE car affectionado".
Truth be told, most are bought by women."
Sorry, GM-breath, but the buyer for the CR-V is near a 50/50 split between men/women. I've owned some GM products in a buying history of more than 50 automobiles. The best by far in terms of longevity and value (including resale) are Hondas. I have 3 in my garage right now (Accord, CR-V, S-2000), even though I could afford the 'premium' stuff being offered today. The CR-V is not an SUV, it's not designed to be one; and who REALLY needs one? Maybe if you live on a dirt road in the mountains. But driving down the freeway or to the mall, I'm comfortable in my CR-V, even if it isn't the hottest in style or stoplight acceleration.
To the first guy who says the interior isn't cheap: you are right. It isn't cheap. It looks and feels outstanding, though the new Equinox may surpass it.
You say: "Sorry, GM-breath." –GUESS AGAIN, I've owned dozens of autos, but fewer from GM than from Japan (not that there's anything wrong with GM). I respect your opinion on Honda, but my luck with them has not been so good. You said: "I have …Accord, CR-V, S-2000), even though I could afford the 'premium' stuff" –YEA RIGHT. If you had the money you'd at least move up to Acrua. You say: "it's not an SUV, it's not designed to be one; and who REALLY needs one?" Good point, so why buy a CR-V? Ya know the Civic makes a LOT more sense. And the Jeep Patriot is less expensive, gets better gas mileage, and won't get stuck in the snow or mud nearly as easily. The Jeep even LOOKS like an SUV (on the outside chance that you got that CR-V for it's ugly-yet-truck-like proportions.) I'm sorry, but I see the CR-V as a pile of compromises which fortuately, I'm not forced to settle for. And there's no reason that anything you pay over $10 grand for should be this obsurdly goofy-looking. Not a painting, not an outfit, not a piece of furniture, and certainly not a small car.
I fully agree, it is cheaply made, the materials are substandard, it rides poorly, it is a mess to own. I would NEVER recommend this unit. it's poor overall and that's certainly not a lie.
I find the old crv much prettier, this one is pretty but not the same. I don't like the ride either, harsh is accurate.
Vince, Let's hope that the U.S. version gets these new Dual Projector Style Halogen Headlights, and not just Asia and Europe! Also, if you look closely you will see that the cheap black plastic front bumper on the current model has given way to a almost fully painted bumper. Hopefully the rear bumper gets the same treatment. Now, if they could only loose those 5 stupid black knobs on the lower rocker panels on each side of the vehicle!
Car Designers create a lot to complain about…They are really childish freaks. Thic looks a little better.
"Anonymous said…
it outsells all the other small SUVs. Wonder why THAT is? HERE'S WHY: It's called MARKETING. Not quality, not engineering, and definitely not "appealing to the KNOWLEDGEABLE car affectionado". Truth be told, most are bought by women. Women who spend more time picking out a $20 dress then they ever would evaluating a $20,000 car. That's the target. The UNinformed car buyer. And it's a MUCH BIGGER market than say, the market for folks who know the difference between a unibody CUV & a body-on-frame SUV. That's why the guy who made Edsels is still making money today and the guy who made Dusenburgs ISN'T!
August 23, 2009 3:31 PM"
Ummm, research proves you wrong. Ever heard of Consumer Reports? JD Power?
Marketing has nothing to do with it seeing as how Honda does very little marketing after the initial launch of the vehicle.
The CR-V is the best selling SUV in America and has been so for the past three years, with almost NO marketing.
"Anonymous said…
You say: "Sorry, GM-breath." –GUESS AGAIN, I've owned dozens of autos, but fewer from GM than from Japan (not that there's anything wrong with GM). I respect your opinion on Honda, but my luck with them has not been so good. You said: "I have …Accord, CR-V, S-2000), even though I could afford the 'premium' stuff" –YEA RIGHT. If you had the money you'd at least move up to Acrua. You say: "it's not an SUV, it's not designed to be one; and who REALLY needs one?" Good point, so why buy a CR-V? Ya know the Civic makes a LOT more sense. And the Jeep Patriot is less expensive, gets better gas mileage, and won't get stuck in the snow or mud nearly as easily. The Jeep even LOOKS like an SUV (on the outside chance that you got that CR-V for it's ugly-yet-truck-like proportions.) I'm sorry, but I see the CR-V as a pile of compromises which fortuately, I'm not forced to settle for. And there's no reason that anything you pay over $10 grand for should be this obsurdly goofy-looking. Not a painting, not an outfit, not a piece of furniture, and certainly not a small car.
August 23, 2009 7:50 PM"
The Patriot is a god awful vehicle that doesn't sell AT ALL.
Even with the revised interior (because the last one was so piss poor) it is still far from the quality of a CR-V. Consumer Reports hates them, as does every single major automotive publication. Have you seen the residual values for a Patriot versus a CR-V? Buying one automatically makes you an idiot. You can pick up a year old Patriot for less than $10,000. Try doing that with a CR-V.
You go ahead and buy that Patriot, a vehicle from a manufacturer that went bankrupt and is likely to fail within the next three years. I refuse to support Chrysler.
"Joe Fraish said…
I fully agree, it is cheaply made, the materials are substandard, it rides poorly, it is a mess to own. I would NEVER recommend this unit. it's poor overall and that's certainly not a lie.
August 23, 2009 8:07 PM"
Please see above. You are foolish.
One of CRs most reliable vehicles, manufactured by their top rated manufacturer. Consumer Reports said that Honda is the best manufacturer, not me. Look it up if you don't believe me.
"hard Plastic said…
these little suckers ride harshly, are noisy and are cheaply finished. Remember, GM outsold everyone forever and were never known for good quality.
August 23, 2009 5:09 PM"
GM sold well because people are stupid and bought piles of GM crap.
Honda isn't a pile of crap, they actually last. My first vehicle was a 1982 Accord that had 340,000 miles on it and went through my two older brothers before it got to me. They drove the hell out of it before I got it and I did the same. It never failed, even once. My father still drives it occasionally and it has over 400K now.
I now have a 2002 Honda CR-V that has 204,xxx+ miles (this is what living in a rural area does) and the only thing I have replaced is tires. Regular maintainence is all it has needed.
My current 2002 CR-V will undoubtedly be replaced with another CR-V. I won't even consider another brand.
By the way, they don't ride harshly. Make sure that the dealer has PROPERLY performed the PDI and has aired the tires down to the proper inflation. I test drove one in 2008 and I thought it rode harshly and my salesman checked the tire pressure and it was inflated to 44PSI (max pressure) to prevent flatspotting while in transit. He says that the techs almost never inflate the tires to the proper pressure.
CRap-V 2.0
Hard and cheap plastics are still hard and cheap plastics no matter in what brand of car they're in.
I love how some people like to spend other peoples money.
"YEA RIGHT. If you had the money you'd at least move up to Acrua. You say: "it's not an SUV, it's not designed to be one; and who REALLY needs one?"
I've got the money, why would I buy a RDX over this? Because it's more expensive?
The CRV has a few extra inches of ground clearance over a car. It's got a bit more space than a car. They don't make wagons anymore. It's not a offroad SUV, so what.
I keep transportation until it dies (usually 200,000 miles plus). You really think the Patriot will last that long?
I've had 3 Hondas with a total of 620,000 miles between them. I don't buy cars as fashion accesorys. Maybe insecure poofters need to, I don't.
Vince Burlapp: Why all the Honda hate?!? I can't remember the last time you said anything nice about the brand.
there is not a nice thing to say. they are ugly, cheap, harsh and tinny. The truth hurts baby. Honda hatin' is where it's at!
"Anonymous said…
CRap-V 2.0
Hard and cheap plastics are still hard and cheap plastics no matter in what brand of car they're in.
August 24, 2009 6:59 AM"
Then you must REALLY hate Nissans.
"Norsemen said…
there is not a nice thing to say. they are ugly, cheap, harsh and tinny. The truth hurts baby. Honda hatin' is where it's at!
August 24, 2009 8:56 AM"
Spoken like a true GM fan.
Consumer Reports rates Honda as the #1 manufacturer, not GM.
Get real and face the facts.
Wow, did someone actually suggest a Patriot?
I have seen like 5 of them on the road since they were released. I sat in one in a dealership about a year ago and the seat had about a half of inch of foam. It was an uncomfortable piece of rubbermaid trash.
Read Car and Drivers first review of one, they absolutely tore that thing apart.
Anything based off of a Caliber will be garbage.
I see a lot of people paying 10, 20, sometimes 100x's the origional list price for 10, 20, 30+year old Chryslers, Dodges, Plymouths, Imperials. recently a '69 Dodge went for $165,000 and a'70 Charger went for $200,000. There are literally DOZENS and DOZENS of old chryslers selling for over $100k at Barette-Jackson alone. All run well. Many in showroom condition. Some for over a Million each (that's about a 300% gain in resale value over the origional price). And there was one Honda. It sold for 1/4 the origional list ( or 1/10 of what was spent on it)… which was under $10k. Those Hondas sure are a great place to stick $20grand for 20 years– that is if you don't have sewer to throw your money down! To each his own. You like Honda Styling? Fine. you can have them. And you can pay to keep them running too.
"Anonymous said…
I see a lot of people paying 10, 20, sometimes 100x's the origional list price for 10, 20, 30+year old Chryslers, Dodges, Plymouths, Imperials. recently a '69 Dodge went for $165,000 and a'70 Charger went for $200,000. There are literally DOZENS and DOZENS of old chryslers selling for over $100k at Barette-Jackson alone. All run well. Many in showroom condition. Some for over a Million each (that's about a 300% gain in resale value over the origional price). And there was one Honda. It sold for 1/4 the origional list ( or 1/10 of what was spent on it)… which was under $10k. Those Hondas sure are a great place to stick $20grand for 20 years– that is if you don't have sewer to throw your money down! To each his own. You like Honda Styling? Fine. you can have them. And you can pay to keep them running too.
August 24, 2009 11:31 AM"
You are an absolute idiot.
How do you compare a Barret Jackson auctioned vehicle to anything that Vince features here???
Please show me one single Chrysler product produced in the past 30 years that is selling for anything more than 2x its original value where it is actually WORTH that price. You say dozens and dozens of vehicles worth a lot, out of maybe 1,000,000 sold? The odds are that is because they were rare. No such thing as a modern day Chrysler that is RARE.
You really think that POS Patriot, 300, CALIBER (!!!), Sebring (HA!), or Town & Country is going to be worth something in 30 years? Chances are it will be in a salvage yard just like the rest of the crap that Chrysler has produced in the past 30 years.
Chrysler is a failing company that doesn't produce a single competitive product. They have no promising vehicles coming down the pipeline and they certainly will crash and burn. Without government assistance, they wouldn't be here today.
Get with the times, buddy. Chrysler is a joke, a joke that is going to cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars.
"I see a lot of people paying 10, 20, sometimes 100x's the origional list price for 10, 20, 30+year old Chryslers, Dodges, Plymouths, Imperials. recently a '69 Dodge went for $165,000 and a'70 Charger went for $200,000"
COLLECTOR CARS>>>>REBUILT CARS>>>>NOT TRANSPORTATION CARS.
They sit in a climate-controlled garage and are babied. Try driving these "Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouths" day in and day out and see what you get in return. Not much.
I love the crv…..kidding, what a piece of complete and pure utter garbage. the only thing worse or at least on par are the crap Korean cars. They ( Honda, Korea and Mattel ) are all responsible for keeping those cheap plastics in circulation.
seems to me there is a shit load of honda haters out there. I wouldn't have believed it. so I went out to drive one last night. …..sadly , the comments are accurate. Junk is junk!
I like how people who currently own older CR-Vs are saying "you're completely wrong, I've been in a new one and it is great!" Yeah, it seems better because you're used to the same car but an older version…of course it's gonna feel better.
I always find it disturbing when people say they will blindly buy the new version of the same car they have. Do yourself a favor and look at all the cars out there. Things change. You're basically saying "I know nothing about any of the other cars but they suck…you know, even though I have never tested them or anything." The only way to make sure things don't get pushed forward is to go out and buy the same damn thing without even looking at the competition. Ignorance is bliss for MANY.
I test drove most of the cars in this class. With the exception of the Rogue, this SUV is not competitive to any of the other vehicles available. That includes GMs new small SUVs, Hyundai, Toyota, Mazda CX 7 or Ford Edge. All of these are much more refined in just about every way than the CRV. I'm probably going to settle on the CX 7 or the Edge.
"Cracked Plastic Dash said…
I love the crv…..kidding, what a piece of complete and pure utter garbage. the only thing worse or at least on par are the crap Korean cars. They ( Honda, Korea and Mattel ) are all responsible for keeping those cheap plastics in circulation.
August 24, 2009 2:08 PM"
"Kia Driver said…
seems to me there is a shit load of honda haters out there. I wouldn't have believed it. so I went out to drive one last night. …..sadly , the comments are accurate. Junk is junk!
August 24, 2009 2:10 PM"
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
Coming from the guy who drives a KIA!!!!!
Get real.
Also, pay attention to how close together these comments are. From the same moronic person.
"Sam Miller-Christiansen said…
I like how people who currently own older CR-Vs are saying "you're completely wrong, I've been in a new one and it is great!" Yeah, it seems better because you're used to the same car but an older version…of course it's gonna feel better.
I always find it disturbing when people say they will blindly buy the new version of the same car they have. Do yourself a favor and look at all the cars out there. Things change. You're basically saying "I know nothing about any of the other cars but they suck…you know, even though I have never tested them or anything." The only way to make sure things don't get pushed forward is to go out and buy the same damn thing without even looking at the competition. Ignorance is bliss for MANY.
August 24, 2009 3:24 PM"
I will blindly buy another CR-V not because I am ignorant, but because my last vehicle was a Toyota Sequoia which was NOT reliable which you think it would be because it is a Toyota.
I've driven all of the competition, and I still prefer the CR-V. I would like the thrust of a V6 RAV4 but it has serious fit and finish issues, and I will never own another Toyota again. I hate the Rogue, and I mean HATE the Rogue, the Outlander is Junk, I wouldn't even consider a Tiguan due to reliability concerns and low resale, the Equinox is ugly and I would never buy a Government Motors product, and the Escape is a reworked version of the original 2001 model.
I have driven them all, still prefer the 3rd generation CR-V.
Seriously, there is a lot of shit talking about the CR-V for this article.
Just for the record, the CR-V is the best selling SUV in America, PERIOD. It has been so for the past three years as well. Honda is apparently doing a lot of things right.
This is coming from a BMW owner.
Not much difference to me at all. But you know what – beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This is hands down the best looking CR-V ever. My Mom has a 2008 CR-V EX and it is a very nice vehicle. I'm with the folks who have said – it's not intended to be luxury. It doesn't drive like an Accord. It is an SUV folks – it's utilitarian with a lot of creature comforts. Very functional and versatile for it's intended purpose as an SUV. For those who don't care for it – get over it. Go buy something different and wait for the year Honda makes a small SUV you like.
This is coming from a BMW owner.
August 24, 2009 3:57 PM
My condolences to you.
Yeah Right…If you had money you would have bought a Bugatti instead of this.
I've got a 2007 CR-V and I drove all of the competition before I purchased and I honestly don't think there was anything that came close to it.
As far as practicality, quality, cost to own, reliability, and resale value the CR-V can't be beat for the price.
I think some people are forgetting that the CR-V isn't a luxury vehicle like others have said. Compare it to ANY of the competition, especially for fit and finish and the CR-V is clearly better.
all this negative vibe….settle down my people, settle, everyone is entitled to their view. Some like honda? most don't that's it! CALM NOW.
Honda is mocking us but people are still blinded by the badge. What does a fully loaded CR-V cost, 27 grand?
27k for a small, underpowerd 4 banger in a small, ugly "suv" with a cheap interior, little off road capabilities and no 3rd row seat.
Yea, ok.
" Anonymous said…
I test drove most of the cars in this class. With the exception of the Rogue, this SUV is not competitive to any of the other vehicles available. That includes GMs new small SUVs, Hyundai, Toyota, Mazda CX 7 or Ford Edge. All of these are much more refined in just about every way than the CRV. I'm probably going to settle on the CX 7 or the Edge.
August 24, 2009 3:27 PM"
CX-7 and the Edge aren't even in the same class as the CR-V you idiot, good job comparing them. Next I'll compare a Focus and a Taurus.
I think I'll believe all the positive reviews I have heard from PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVE JOURNALISTS rather than some stupid schmuck online.
The CX-7 has THE LOWEST owner satisfaction rating out of almost every single SUV offered, but you go ahead and buy one. Don't believe me? Check Consumer Reports.
"Anonymous said…
Honda is mocking us but people are still blinded by the badge. What does a fully loaded CR-V cost, 27 grand?
27k for a small, underpowerd 4 banger in a small, ugly "suv" with a cheap interior, little off road capabilities and no 3rd row seat.
Yea, ok.
August 25, 2009 7:47 AM"
I'll counter every single one of your points because I actually know what I am talking about.
1. Every single SUV that is in the CR-Vs class is available with a four cylinder. The CR-V doesn't NEED a six.
2. 27K for a fully loaded CR-V with 4WD, leather and navigation. Try that with any of the competition. They will be over $30,000 easily. Check edmunds TMV pricing and you will see.
3. What are you comparing it to??? 99% of the people who actually buy SUVs need to go offroad. What other SUVs in its category are more capable??? They are all about equal. Car and Driver called the CR-V suprisingly capable.
4. Compare the third row seats in the RAV4 and the Outlander, both of which are completely and totally useless, even for small children. Get real.
Don't be so ignorant, please do some research.
This comment has been removed by the author.
HONDA FANS ARE WAY TOO ANAL RETENTIVE!!! This crap always happens when Vince posts something about their precious Honda's to be. You will never see such rediculous comments anywhere else on his blog. I am taking my ball away from here and I am going home now since you won't play ball the my way!
I just got a 2009 CR-V EX-leather as part of the CFC deal (thanks US Gov). I traded in a 1998 GMC Suburban.
I drove all of the competitors and liked the CR-V the best by far. I didn't like the new Equinox at ALL. I hated the Roges transmission and dash layout (looked boring), the RAV4s front end looks like a scared fish and the interior quality wasn't impressive. I also drove a Outlander but honestly, I didn't like it at all but I did like it more than the Rogue because it was more fun to drive.
The CR-V had the best balance of all of them and you can't beat the reliability of it. Consumer reports is all red circles (the best). My neighbor has a '97 with almost 300K on it and he refuses to get rid of it.
Can't blame Honda for keeping the CR-V conservative. It's been a proven winner for them. But, they let the competition surpass them, in some cases greatly. If this is the next offering from Honda the only advantage they have is their name.
"Anonymous said…
Can't blame Honda for keeping the CR-V conservative. It's been a proven winner for them. But, they let the competition surpass them, in some cases greatly. If this is the next offering from Honda the only advantage they have is their name.
August 28, 2009 8:52 AM"
Honestly, what has surpassed the CR-V at the current point, in exactly its range?
I don't think anything has honestly and I don't even own a SUV/CUV OR a Honda.
I think you are missing the point that this is a MMC and not a FMC, buddy. Don't expect great changes for a MMC.
"Honestly, what has surpassed the CR-V at the current point, in exactly its range?"
Well…. having only 1 engine choice, which is weaker then mostly all the base engines being used in others, is a detriment for the CR-V. It's also somewhat smaller then others. Some even offer 3 rd row seating. Plus with it topping off at $28,000 forces it to be compared with SUV's in the mid-sized class. There it's shortcomings become even more glaring. The CR-V has aged but the Honda name keeps relevant.
50 posts, WOW!
I have a 2008 CR-V LX and I love it!!! I have tinted the windows and bought some EX wheels for less than $300 on eBay and it looks like a EX now. With snow tires, it has gotten me through the worst winter can throw at me in Maine. 16+ inches were no problem.
My co-worker has a Rogue and he hates it, the CVT has been replaced TWICE and Nissan hasn't promised that it will fix the problem. He posted on Edmunds about his problems in his review. I drove one but I didn't like it at all and I am glad I didn't even consider it now!!!!
"Anonymous said…
"Honestly, what has surpassed the CR-V at the current point, in exactly its range?"
Well…. having only 1 engine choice, which is weaker then mostly all the base engines being used in others, is a detriment for the CR-V. It's also somewhat smaller then others. Some even offer 3 rd row seating. Plus with it topping off at $28,000 forces it to be compared with SUV's in the mid-sized class. There it's shortcomings become even more glaring. The CR-V has aged but the Honda name keeps relevant.
August 28, 2009 1:09 PM"
A RAV4, Outlander, Escape, etc. can all top $30,000 so what is your point exactly? Sure, go ahead and buy a BASE mid size with no features. A $28,000 CR-V has leather and nav. A $28,000 Highlander has a lump of a four cylinder powering it and not even a sunroof. I'd much rather have the CR-V.
Single engine option, yes, but the market has proven that many don't want or need the V6. The take rate on the RAV4 V6 is less than 30%.
3rd row seats are completely useless in this segment of small CUVs.