Honda Car Forum

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?

Sorry for all the questions but I'm still in learning and research
mode.

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. ...

Check out the CR-V forums at http://www.hondasuv.com. Look in the
2007-2008 sub-forum. There are several threads about the 2010's there.

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.

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?
>
> Sorry for all the questions but I'm still in learning and research
> mode.

--
Tp,

-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...

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.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

"Always shoot first. At the very least you'll
distract the guy enough to make the second one count"
-- Lazurus Long

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.

Great on back roads though, and around town, as a hauler.

When we recently shopped for a new vehicle for my Mother we looked at
the CR-V. We have a friend who has one as well. The friend's CR-V has
been very reliable, but he says he wouldn't buy another one. His
biggest complaint is the seating position. He has a base model with
the non-power driver's seat. My biggest complaint about his CR-V was
the wind noise. It was among the noisest vehicles on the highway I
been in in a long time. For my Mother we decided against the CR-V
becasue of the cost. She defintiely wanted a power seat and preferred
leather. Unfortunately as soon as you looked for a CR-V equipped that
way, you also got a sun roof, a fancy radio, and other stuff she
didn't care about. This pushed the price up well beyond the other
vehicles we looked at (Toyota Highlander, Ford Edge). She ended up
getting the Highlander.

Ed

"Observer" <none@void.com> wrote in message
news:jktte59nk7ne747pv34apq74jebble069c@4ax.com...
> 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?
>
> Sorry for all the questions but I'm still in learning and research
> mode.

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.

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.

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.

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.