Hi Archie, I use a 2000 150 hp CR-V as occasionally, albeit automatic. Doesn't really feel fast to me, but above adequate. Responsive transmission and 60-100 kph is pretty decent, but from a standstill or from 120 kph onwards, doesn't have a lot of punch. Must be the long gearing of the AT? The R18 Civic is more rev happy (no torque) but I don't mind revving as long as it gets up to speed quickly.
Haven't tried the 2.0 Accord yet, but from your experience, a 2.0 F20 manual Accord is slower than a B20 manual CR-V? I understand that the B20 is inherently torquier than the F20 but the CR-V is also heavier by almost 100 kilos.
Also, your thoughts on the 2.3 F23? Almost same price in OLX. I know it's torquier, but how far is the performance vs the 2.0 if both are MT? I only get 6 km/L with our 2.0 CR-V AT and if the 2.3 is much thirstier than the 2.0 without much difference in performance, I might opt for the 2.0. But if performance is noticeably better without too much of a hit in FC (say, 0.5 km/L only), then I'll look more towards the 2.3.
One problem we've had with the CR-V is the AWD mechanism which has been creaking from the rear lately when making hard turns. If this is a frequent problem for most CR-Vs, I might have to disable the AWD.
The bike storage isn't a very important feature since I usually pedal all the way so I rarely load the bike in the car, and whether I put it in a CR-V or a midsizer, I still have to take out the front wheel to load it (though it's easier to load with a CR-V through the rear hatch as opposed to doors on a sedan).
Sorry for the flurry of questions, I know kasi you're pretty well-versed on Honda engines and your inputs are highly appreciated. Thanks bro
Posted via Tsikot Mobile App






Reply With Quote