7.5 seconds to 60 is leisurely?? I think most people out there would find that to be planning decent, if not quite brisk for an SUV. when I think leisurely, I think more like 9 to 10 seconds.
When is 7.5 0-60 mediocre ? That's quite good for a crossover or whatever this is classified as. I'm pretty sure only the 2.0T shortage is quicker 0-60 at 6.7 if I'm not mistaken so the Honda is plenty fast, a majority of CRV buyers aren't going to complain about performance.
I was just coming down here to say the same thing. It wasn't *that* long ago that 7.5 was considered decent for a small quasi-sportscar. We're getting to the point that engine power is actually far exceeding what's safe for most idiots on the road.
I was just thinking the same thing. Hell if you had a car in the early 2000 that went to 60 in 7.5 seconds that same announcer was praising it on how quick it was.
MW's Review of the diamond star 1984 Conquest sports car said that its 0-60 time of 10.1 was breath taking! It had a 2.4 turbo. I remember thinking when I drove it was awesome! I now own a 2017 CRV. I love everything about it, especially the stellar fuel economy. Why is 0-60 in 7.5 mediocre when I get 34 mpg at the same time? I know technology is better..still seems interesting
I wish my car went 0-60 in 7.5 seconds! In another video, I forgot what car he was testing he said the car accelerated to 60 in a ok 6.4 seconds! Is he kidding me? The 90s trans m did that and he called it super fast!
Certainly the new Honda had improved a lot of crappy features over my 2014 CRV; foot pedal parking brake, lack of arm rest, slightly bigger seats (still too small for men), and more torque. However, they had lost me as a customer for a 2017/2018 CRV and 2018 Accord since only the turbo and CVT are available on both models. The digital dash, smaller fuel tank and complex entertainment panel also turned me off.
i don't know what it is about the new cr-v but I don't like it as much as the older ones. My mom had a 2nd gen that I learned to drive with. Much easier to drive than my dads pilot. these new ones look almost bigger than my dads old honda pilot. We need more actual small SUVs. No more "crossover SUV" nonsense.
helloish12321 The new CR-V is only 2.5 inches longer than the original. That's nothing, essentially the same size when you factor in the spare tire carrier. The original Accord compared to the current one is about 20 inches longer.
Small 14 gallon fuel tank. Stupid. You would be lucky if you got 325 miles out of it before you had to fill up. Warm it up in the winter, less efficient cold, higher ethanol fuel blend, and you will be lucky to get 300 miles. For it's size it could have had a 16-19 gallon capacity.
Even at 28mpg and 13 gallons so as to leave a safety cushion it’s still 364 miles per tank. And at highway mpg even at a low 31 mpg and still 13 gallons for a buffer, it’s 403 miles per tank. I’m guessing simple math isn’t your forte’.
Bought a '17 EX-L for 28K and change. I first drove competing makes - Escape, CX-5, Rav4, Forester, Chevrolet, Buick, VW, Rogue, Kia and Mitsubishi. The most bang for the buck was the CRV - Leather, heated seats, interior noise level, sensing package, adequate power, excellent braking, great sound system, blind spot warning and a very workable CVT. I am 74 years old and this will likely be the last car that I will need to buy as I am positive it will outlast me and make a great car for one of my grandchildren. There was nothing really terrible about any of the others, but the CRV was the best package for me.
