CRV Fuel Nightmare

[pup2]

mga sirs,

hope you can help me regarding the CRV 99/00 i am supposed to buy 1 week from now. I am working abroad and someone is selling his crv 99/00 ( manual trans) to me. I haveno issue with its looks kase nakita na ng parents ko yung unit pero yung fuel consumption lang nya. sabi nung owner its consuming 7-9km/ city driving.

I have '06 CRV full option 2.4L now and malakas talaga sa fuel pero im living in middle east so FC is not an issue. Kindly giveme some info's naman mga sir's if its wise to buy now that 99/00 CRV or just buy a compact car like jazz or diesel cars with crdi technology.

thanks in advance

Bro, kung puro city driving lang, I'd suggest a sub-compact or a diesel na lang. Pero kung madalas mag out of town, I'd suggest an efficient compact like the civic or a diesel cuv depende kung gaano kapangit ang kalye.

[CVT]

I guess when a person can afford to buy a vehicle like a CRV, then he should have the capacity to pay for the high cost of fuel....

6000:mobile:

[niker]

Hi guys,

I need to know something...

What part of activities consume/waste gas the most...

1. Stopping at Stop light
2. Stepping on accelerator
3. Turning on and off the ignition

I'm asking this because other cars can go 10km/liter in pure
highway driving while the CRV 2004 A/T can't even reach more
than 6km/liter in highway driving (as opposed to 5km/liter city
driving).. why kaya?

Second. Is it true the 2nd Gen CRV 2004 A/T can go or
accelerate faster than the CRV 2008? This means the CRV 2004
has more powerful engine, built almost like a tank?

Third. I have seen many images in TVs of sedans like city or civic
being crumpled during collision. But I don't recall seeing SUVs
like CRVs being crumpled during collision. It seems CRVs are
quite collision resistance. Isn't it? This would be a great safety
factor and may mean keeping the CRV even if fuel cost is higher
(consider the higher pesos spent to be added security).

What do you think?

[alwayz_yummy]

weight and driver (human intervention) affects efficiency. just like the thread starter may FC problem ako..not with a crv but with my auster.. now in in the process of researching and reading about the alternative: LPG

heller, 2.0 up kaya makina nito noh! comparing it to 1.8-below COMPACT and sub-compact, and some even compare it to micro-cars is full of rubbish..

compare your cars FC with the right vehicle.. if a cSUV, compare it with the FC of another cSUV! like escape, xtrail, outlander, rav4... kasi kung cocompare mo sa jazz, civic lancer, altis, nakow, puputi man uwak di titipid ang crv mo na kasing tipid ng mga yun...

[number001]

1. Stopping at Stop light

Idle moments running the engine, whether in the traffic or enjoying the aircon while parked in the parking space, is quite bad for the fuel consumption rate because fuel is being burned without any corresponding gain in kilometers. So, if you had an instantaneous fuel consumption rate meter in the vehicle, it would say 0.0 km/li.

2. Stepping on accelerator

It is obvious that any pedal-to-the floor start from a stand still is really bad mechanically (in the long term) and for fuel consumption. To conserve gas, slightly tap the accelerator from a stand still start. Doing this will really slow your vehicle (depending on how heavy it is) so ignore those honking their horns at your back. Release the pedal before hitting 2,000 rpm.

3. Turning on and off the ignition

Regarding on and off of the ignition. If this is done during stand still traffic, I think it could save some fuel. Manufacturers like Mini have incorporated something like this in their Clubman. Only concern is the constant load on the battery. Also not so sure how would an on and off situation might affect the aircon compressor. If you are referring to on-off in relation to short trips then it is not good. The engine wouldn't get the chance to warm up to its nominal or ideal operating temperature.

The key here is to try to maintain momentum whenever possible. Only apply brakes and gas as needed. Keep it to a minimum if possible.

Check your tire pressure regularly. I read somewhere that even a -1 psi off the recommended psi value is enough to rob off some performance.

I'm asking this because other cars can go 10km/liter in pure
highway driving while the CRV 2004 A/T can't even reach more
than 6km/liter in highway driving (as opposed to 5km/liter city
driving).. why kaya?

I think fuel consumption in varying degrees of traffic is quite difficult to compare. Maybe if you can share the route you take, max road speed attainable, avg speed, traffic condition, time of the day/night, weather condition, etc...

Second. Is it true the 2nd Gen CRV 2004 A/T can go or
accelerate faster than the CRV 2008? This means the CRV 2004
has more powerful engine, built almost like a tank?

The R series of the new CRV and the K20 series on the 2nd gen. CRV, though belonging to different lines, are quite similar in terms of their specs. In fact, the R series has a slight edge, but that advantage will diminish if the new CRV is heavier than the old one. Honda Phil did not publish the curb weight of the 2nd gen CRV on their brochures.

Third. I have seen many images in TVs of sedans like city or civic
being crumpled during collision. But I don't recall seeing SUVs
like CRVs being crumpled during collision. It seems CRVs are
quite collision resistance. Isn't it? This would be a great safety
factor and may mean keeping the CRV even if fuel cost is higher
(consider the higher pesos spent to be added security).

The Civic FD has one of the highest collision rating from the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) in its category. The current and outgoing GD Jazz, which the current City is based on, also got similar high ratings in the US. Bottom line is, these vehicles have ample crush zones and safety features to minimize injuries. The new CRV (3rd gen.) also attained high ratings in its category from the above mentioned institutions.

Regarding, your 2nd gen. CRV, if I'm not mistaken, its crash test results were lower than the current Civic, City, or CRV. Therefore, the newer vehicles are actually safer and more crash worthy.