• Aug 26, 2006
AutoWeek decided to pull back the curtain early on the 2007 Honda CR-V and publish pictures and details of the new CUV that the automaker had placed on embargo until September 1st. We've seen this happen so many times before, and not just by small blogs and websites who don't know any better, but by big media outlets like AutoWeek, that at this point we find it hard to believe they did it without permission directly from Honda. Automakers are getting more and more savvy about building buzz that it just wouldn't surprise us, that's all. We had a call into Honda this afternoon as well, and we weren't that surprised when no one called back.

Anyway, official shots of the CR-V had already been leaked onto the internet about five days ago, and undisguised spy shots have been floating around for even longer, so the new CR-V's skin is anything but surprising at this point. The gaping void below the front grille and the severely sloping outline of the rear side windows are still polarizing design elements whose acceptance will now be at the mercy of the market.

What we do know now that we didn't before is that the CR-V will have a base price of $21,400 when it goes on sale in October. Option up the CR-V with a satellite navigation system and 270-watt stereo and the sticker will approach $28,000. The sole powerplant remains Honda's 2.4-liter inline four-cylinder, albeit upgraded for 2007 to produce an additional 10 horsepower (now 166 horsepower/161 ft-lbs. of torque), and no manual will be offered this time around, just a five-speed automatic.

Though the CR-V's styling hasn't made the best first impression on us, we will say that Honda could be making a very shrewd move by not following the trend of dropping a powerful V6 into its tiniest of utes. The CR-V's 2.4-liter four will no doubt produce commendable gas mileage and operate at the typical level of Honda four-cylinder refinement. That combination could lead to big sales for the CR-V in these lean and green times.

(Interior shot can be found after the jump)

[Source: AutoWeek]



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 34 Comments
      • 8 Years Ago
      HORRIBLE!!!! COMPLETELY UGLY AND STUPID. How does Honda will sell an extremely ass-faced thing like this?
      People want a decent and "cute" car that satisfates the needs of a family or a person. Besides the powerplant isn't an amazing feature, I was expecting a more powerful and modern engine, but Honda's cappacity only gives 10hp, WOW!!!! it's the best feature I've never seen. Other CUV's like Suzuki Grand Vitara, Nissan X-Trail (sorry, that car doesn´t exists for U.S.), etc. have more power and a better appareance than this ch**. I'm prefer a 2007 Mitsibishi Outlander, it grows in size, power, and quality, and it have a friendly and attractive appareance. So, I never will buy a Honda.

      Sorry but if my comment is hard to understand is because I'm not very good to write in English, cause I'm mexican and I talk spanish... La aclaracion fue mas que obvia pero como he visto la forma en que son mejor les pongo algo que entendieran jeje.
      Saludos
      Kathy
      • 8 Years Ago
      My husband and I have a 2002 CR-V, our second. It is our practical car. The other vehicle is the expensive, fun, two-seater, middle-age, empty-nester, baby boomer car.

      We test drove several small SUV/Crossover vehicles the last few weeks because we are ready to replace the CR-V. It has been a great car and we found a new home for her with our son and his family.

      We didn't test drive many of the crossovers/small SUV's because the price made them an impractical car.

      You need to remember this is an entry level small SUV that is not really made to be a true off road car. It has GREAT gas mileage and when you want the car to move it will. Yes, it is not a speed demon, but it does what it is supposed to do.

      If you are looking for a vehicle, that can comfortably fit two large moms in the back seat, has room for their shopping bags, is dependable, and is way under 30K, the CR-V is it.

      This would be a great car for a young, small family.
      • 8 Years Ago
      I'm very disappointed to hear about the lack of a manual transmission. That's a deal breaker for me. To the comment on it being a civic wagon; I think I would take a civic wagon in a heartbeat over this if it retained the civics looks, ride height, economy AND manual transmission. I could care less about a V6 version, but the addition of this supposed diesel that's in the works would be a wise move IMHO.
      • 8 Years Ago
      Interesting that so many people assume that the CR-V 4 cylinder engine won't have enough power when they haven't driven the vehicle yet.
      I'd bet most of the Accord V6s on the road are owned by people who never tested the 4 cylinder Accord because the last 4 cylinder car they drove was a crappy Pinto or similar POS from the '70s or early '80s.
      Best advice would be to give the 4 a test drive before moaning about needing more cylinders.
      • 8 Years Ago
      This thing will sell well to the soccer moms and first time suv/crossover buyers. Its looking more crossover now than ever; whereas its competitors are more SUV looking; which is a good thing.

      As for those complaing about its looks; get over it already. This is the next CRV and its here to stay. I would think that Honda knows more about cars than most of you ever will.

      As for the V6? CRV will get a V6 when the Civic gets a V6; ie. its not going to happen esp. when its upmarket RDX brother doesnt have one (excellent L4 turbo though). If you want a V6 in a Honda SUV get a Pilot.
      • 8 Years Ago
      That thing is so ugly that my cat keeps trying to cover my computer monitor with air kitty litter - she is moving her feet like she's trying to cover something that really stinks.
      • 8 Years Ago
      They think this thing can compete in the same price range as the new Hyundai Santa Fe? I wish them luck, because they're going to need it. That thing is hideous, and the MDX is even worse.
      RALPH BORSELLA
      • 8 Years Ago
      I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR A SMALL SUV WITHOUT THE TIRE IN THE BACK, AND ITS HERE.WHILE NOT THE BEST LOOKING, YOU CAN COUNT ON HONDA RELIABILITY. WHO NEEDS A SUPER CHARGED V6 WITH THE GAS PRICES THE WAY THEY ARE? THEY NEED PREMIUM GAS, TOO, LIKE THE RDX...A BIG MISTAKE!
      • 8 Years Ago
      Very nice, elegant design. I don't understand all the negative comments, everything about this car is better - the only downside I heard was a lack of manual transmission but I'm getting old and thats not such a big deal anymore. I think I will buy one, thanks Honda.
      • 8 Years Ago
      I like it except for the gaping maw on the front end.

      The steering wheel and gauge cluster look vaguely Volkswagen to me, which is definitely not a bad thing!
      • 8 Years Ago
      MDX is a HUGE improvement, inside and out. Displacement bump to 3.7 is also news to me.

      On the CR-V, anyone know where to get a full feature list to go with those prices?

      http://www.truedelta.com
      • 8 Years Ago
      The new CR-V is no thing of beauty but the RAV4 is a bust as I see it.
      The RAV4's dumb, spare tire hangs off the back and becomes the rear bumper--a bad idea. The CR-V finally eliminated the hanging spare in back. The RAV4's rear, "D" pillar is ugly IMO.
      If the CR-V's 4 cylinder engine is powerful enough for the CR-V's weight, it should be OK. My '04 Accord has the 2.4L, 160HP engine and it's plenty quick--smooth, too.
    • Load More Comments