Honda CR-V Review from Romania

1998 Honda CR-V 2.0i

Model year1998
Year of manufacture1998
First year of ownership2007
Most recent year of ownership2007
Engine and transmission 2.0i Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
9.0 / 10
Distance when acquired150300 kilometres
Most recent distance157000 kilometres
Previous carChrysler Sebring Sedan

Summary:

Reliability at maximum, forget about dealers

Faults:

Rear light didn't turn on, and it isn't a blown bulb. It seems something related to the switch from the gearbox.

Radiator (aluminum and plastic) needed to be changed, the plastic upper part was aged and made a very small crack which allowed a slight leaking of the coolant. Found one very cheap on e-bay.

General Comments:

This model of car (1997-2001) is incredibly reliable, simple and easy to maintain. I changed the radiator myself.

After nine years of work, the suspension is still in it's original good condition. And the rear auto-blocking differential allows no mistakes from the user when selecting itself 4x4, thus avoiding it's damaging when used in improper conditions.

It takes some time for the driver to get used with it's lack of ergonomics (i.e. windows buttons were placed under the left air outlet), but it's reliability far outruns this minor issues. Plus, you get a very good rear access for all 101 family things one needs to carry, the rear seats have adjustable back and everything still works on it, even the electrical roof. Not a single button damaged or squeaking.

My car is equipped with a LPG system, which allows me a consumption (gas equivalent) to 6 liters / 100 km urban and 5 liters / 100 km highway.

Engine has a lot of power, provided that you rev. it up in the range 3.000 - 5.000 rpm where it really shows it's 120 HP. If you don't over-inflate the tires (observe the 1.8 bar written under the driver's door) you would even get a very smooth suspension for bad roads. Not a rocket, but rather a good horse to bring you back home from long journeys.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 27th October, 2007

27th Jan 2011, 04:27

I think there is a mistake about LPG consumption. How may it consume 5 or 6 litres per 100 kms?

29th Nov 2012, 17:54

I would guess that the important word in the review is "equivalent" i.e. 10 to 12 ltrs per 100km and cost equivalent to 5 to 6 ltrs per 100km.

Average review marks: 9.0 / 10, based on 1 review