Well if you drove one that is a "Gen-1", pre 2002, you're right...
a BIG complaint from Gen-1ers was no enough power.

Each year from '02 on they got better...the '05 will be even nicer
and in '06 they are going for a total redesign.

Personally this is my 5th Honda in a row. I tried out the Matrix, Rav4,
and also the Ford Escape. All of them I found lacking in either power,
handling or ride.

The Ford sucked the most...bad tranny coupled to a decent engine...
found, like the other two above, that I was CONSTANTLY giving it
gas just to keep momentum.

For me the 2.4 liter, 160HP V-Tec fits the CR-V perfect.

I DRIVES and HANDLE just like a car....which is what I wanted...
I didn't want the feel and ride of a "truck" but I DID want the cargo
space.

In the end our '04 CR-V EX came Loaded to the teeth...and cost
$23K.

The others couldn't touch that and all the options included.


"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-439323.15195508092004@text.usenetserver.com...
> In article
> <tqG%c.192888$pTn.87004@news01.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com>,
> "Booboo" <dennisbe@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > I just got a CRV, I have never been so disappointed in a Honda product,
as
> > much as I have been disappointed with this CRV.
>
> You know, one way to tell about a car is to drive one that's a few years
> and/or 50,000 miles old.
>
> I've driven several used CR-Vs, and all of them have felt--well, trashy.
> They're noisy, they don't feel good on the road, the radios all suck big
> time, etc.
>
> I've decided that the CR-V isn't a good vehicle overall. Maybe
> stretching the Civic platform to that kind of vehicle was beyond what
> the Civic platform could take.
>
> But here we are, waiting for Honda to put leather, good audio, and a nav
> system into it and call it an Acura RDX. I can't imagine that it will
> fare any better as an Acura.
>
> I'm most disappointed in the CR-V.
>