1998 Honda CR-V Reviews

1998 Honda CR-V EX 2.0 from North America

Year of manufacture1998
First year of ownership2012
Most recent year of ownership2013
Engine and transmission 2.0 Manual
Performance marks 5 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.0 / 10
Distance when acquired180000 kilometres
Most recent distance220000 kilometres

Summary:

Uninspiring to drive

Faults:

Clutch master cylinder.

General Comments:

This is one of the best made cars I have ever owned. It is a high mileage car that runs like new, everything works, and it looks fresh.

It drives very well in snow and on dirt roads.

But I don't like the car because it revs too high in 5th on the highway. It is a slow car, with dull handling, and bland ride. Fuel economy is far worse than I'd expected; 22 MPG HWY.

More of a city car. Sucks for a long trip. Not a highway car.

Don't find it an attractive car, but the CR-V only got worse. Everything on the inside is grey. I can only admire the quality, especially the crispest tachometer and display. The cassette deck seems bulletproof.

Because it is so reliable, I may have it for some time.

Already thinking about the next car, a same era Accord.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 22nd February, 2013

25th Feb 2013, 07:16

An Accord for your next car?

Good idea, since you seem to like this CRV so much.

1998 Honda CR-V LX 2.0 from North America

Model year1998
Year of manufacture1998
First year of ownership2009
Most recent year of ownership2009
Engine and transmission 2.0 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.0 / 10
Distance when acquired216400 kilometres
Most recent distance219500 kilometres
Previous carBMW 3 Series

Summary:

Good little work horse for lugging kids, sports gear or the family about town

Faults:

Replaced two tie rods.

Replaced one passenger side control arm.

Air filter.

Needs rear wiper motor.

Timing belt done 40000K ago.

General Comments:

I have only had the CR-V for two weeks, but have logged over 3000Ks with little disappointment.

I have no complaints with the power, the CR-V cruises at 130kms no problem.

Interior is moderately comfortable, but it is not a plush SUV, it is a little work horse.

I will post again once I have had it longer.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 21st December, 2009

1998 Honda CR-V EX 2.0 4 cylinder from North America

Model year1998
Year of manufacture1998
First year of ownership2009
Most recent year of ownership2009
Engine and transmission 2.0 4 cylinder Automatic
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.7 / 10
Distance when acquired135000 miles
Most recent distance136000 miles
Previous carHonda Accord

Summary:

No matter the condition, it is still a Honda and I love it

Faults:

We purchased the car from a private owner who was desperate for money (paid $1,000). It was in need of a head gasket, and had been poorly cared for. My husband is a mechanic, so we went ahead and replaced the whole motor.

I'm not sure if the following is a result of poor ownership or poor quality craftsmanship. The vehicle seems rickety, like a tin can when driving on a highway. I have owned several vehicles in my lifetime, and this reminds me of a cheaply made old style Hyundai (before they became reliable).

I am slightly disappointed to find that although this is an EX model, and my other Honda is a year older (97 Accord SE), it has less convenience options on it. For instance, the windows do not work once the key is off, and there is no gas cap holder. It may sound petty, but I have become well adjusted to these in my Accord. I would have expected a car that is newer and technically better option wise, to have these in it.

I have seen others complain about the lack of power, but it is sufficient enough for my needs, and is exactly what I would expect from a 4-CYL in an SUV. I am still a loyal Honda owner, and I don't expect that to change. They keep their value better than most other makes of car and more than surpass the 100K mileage mark with no problems. (my Accord currently has 260K on it)

General Comments:

It has excellent storage space, cup holders, and the picnic table that comes standard is a neat extra.

I'm a loyal Honda owner, I have had several different models (CRX, CR-V, Prelude and Accord) Honda is the most reliable manufacturer of cars around today.

It seems to be good at handling corners, and is excellent on gas.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 8th April, 2009

9th Apr 2009, 02:01

I would have loved to have bought a Honda Prelude, they're very in demand in NZ. Excellent record of reliability, a 96 Honda can see NZ$ 4500.

Regards.

1998 Honda CR-V 2.0i from Romania

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: 7.4 / 10, based on 17 reviews