E. Meyer wrote:
>
>
> On 11/10/09 10:48 AM, in article
> Cs2dndYocaDDBGTXnZ2dnUVZ_tdi4p2d@speakeasy.net, "News" <News@Group.Name>
> wrote:
>
>> E. Meyer wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/10/09 6:21 AM, in article
>>> BNudnTtGC46AxmTXnZ2dnUVZ_hFi4p2d@speakeasy.net, "News" <News@Groups.Name>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dillon Pyron wrote:
>>>>> Thus spake TomP <roadcyc@socal.rr.com> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> The 2010 CR-v is as reliable as an anvil. That is the breed is well
>>>>>> developed and refined. If you drive mostly in town; the CR-v is a great
>>>>>> choice...
>>>>>> However, the ambient sound level when on the highway (driving 65~80 MPH)
>>>>>> can get a bit loud, depending on the road condition... after all, it's not
>>>>>> a luxury ride.
>>>>>> Make sure to drive the CR-v on the highway, and if possible on different
>>>>>> road surfaces.
>>>>> Problem is the tires. Chunky tires make more noise. AND present
>>>>> delamination problems (although not as much as a few years ago). Most
>>>>> AWD and 4WD cars and light SUVs are now sold with a less OTR
>>>>> aggressive tread design.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tires dissapate heat by getting as much tread as possible exposed to
>>>>> the air, and getting as much tread as possible on the pavement. Slicks
>>>>> are great for that (although there are other advantages, like contact
>>>>> surface for transfer of torque), but big chunks of rubber don't do as
>>>>> good of a job. And radials don't like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> But yes, the CR-V can be a noisy ride. My Fit, surprisingly, is much
>>>>> queiter. Not as much as the Civic you'd get for the same price, but
>>>>> more so than the CR-V you'd get for more money.
>>>>>> Observer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Considering buying a new 2010 CR-V but so far what I read on the net
>>>>>>> is about reviews or comments for the features. What I want to know is
>>>>>>> the comments about the mechanics of them. Is there any mechanical /
>>>>>>> electrical weaknesses or things I should be wary of if I buy one...
>>>>>>> ie: timing belt or chain, electrical wiring, transmission, etc.. .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also anyone think a AWD in south Texas (Houston area) worth
>>>>>>> considering? I'm thinking about high water or just a lot of rain not
>>>>>>> snow or ice of course. Are the AWD reliable and do they require more
>>>>>>> maintenance? And do they handle a lot better than FWD?
>>>>> DO NOT drive thorugh high water, AWD or 4WD. I don't know if you hear
>>>>> the LCRA commercials, but "turnaround, don't drown" is real. About
>>>>> 1/2 inch of moving water is death. In Houston, I've never seen "just"
>>>>> 2 inches standing. Look at how much of 10 and SW Freeway go under
>>>>> water farily easily. TXDOT keeps building drains and they keep
>>>>> flooding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other than that, what are you really looking for? Is a CR-V really
>>>>> the answer? I've actually heard people say they buy a CR-V or RAV4 or
>>>>> even Highlander because they're afraid of a crash with a dump truck.
>>>>> Well, folks, if you get hit by a dump truck in a 'Burb, you are very
>>>>> likely going to be carried off in the van marked "Coroner" or "ME".
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry for all the questions but I'm still in learning and research
>>>>>>> mode.
>>>> The CR-V is s short wheelbase, stiffly sprung car that is quite darty
>>>> and busy on the highway, especially over expansion joints.
>>> Speaking as a CR-V owner, I don't agree with those assertions, at least not
>>> when comparing the CR-V to other SUVs. The CR-V rides much more car-like
>>> than my Pathfinder and I don't know what you mean by "darty". We've driven
>>> it cross country several times at sustained highway speeds, 70 to 80 MPH.
>>> It drives straight effortlessly. Nothing "darty" about it.
>>>
>>> My only two complaints are the road noise (its tire noise transmitted
>>> through the suspension, not wind) and the too small gas tank, both of which
>>> seem to be Honda traits, not just with the CR-V.
>>>
>>>> Great on back roads though, and around town, as a hauler.
>>> That I agree with. Most versatile enclosed vehicle (open pickup still wins
>>> this category) I've owned.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm also speaking as a CR-V owner of a 2005 SE ... after five years.
>>
>> The highway ride was improved (less darty, less noise) after ditching
>> the Duelers that came on the car, but is still far less directionally
>> stable at highway speeds than my 100" wheelbase comparison ride.
>>
>> The CR-V's issue is the steering -- overly sensitive at highway speeds.
>>
>> Our Accord had variable assist steering, which the CR-V appears to lack.
>
> My CR-V is an '06. The steering is not any more sensitive at highway speeds
> than any other car I've owned. In fact, its less sensitive than many of
> them, including the '00 TL (which is an Accord with delusions of grandeur).
>
> There was a TSB that applied to the '05 & earlier 2nd gen CR-Vs to take the
> front suspension apart and reposition the spring in the upper seat. You
> might want to look into that.
>

That was for the "PTTR" Pull To The Right issue, which we don't have.

Make no mistake, I like the CR-V, I just don't prefer to drive it on
long distance / highway trips.