| Year of manufacture | 1998 |
| First year of ownership | 1998 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2001 |
| Engine and transmission | 2.0 137hp Manual |
| Performance marks | 7 / 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) |
8.6 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 11 miles |
| Most recent distance | 15000 miles |
| Previous car | Honda Accord |
Summary:
Reliability and good design
Faults:
Nothing has gone wrong. The car has only needed oil and tyre changes.
General Comments:
The CRV is very well built and is surprisingly roomy. It is a very comfortable drive for an SUV.
The engine for this year's model is a little underpowered. I would not use it as a towing vehicle.
Another dependable (smart) Honda vehicle.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 2nd September, 2001
| Year of manufacture | 1998 |
| First year of ownership | 1998 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2001 |
| Engine and transmission | 2.0 Automatic |
| Performance marks | 0 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 10 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 0 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 0 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 0 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
2.0 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 12 miles |
| Most recent distance | 68000 miles |
| Previous car | Toyota Camry |
Summary:
Underpowered JOKE!
Faults:
Rear brakes constantly.
A/C problems.
General Comments:
This car is a joke, it doesn't even have enough power to pull itself much less anything else, big mistake on my part.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No
Review Date: 23rd January, 2001
The guy who made the comment about the CR-V is a joke and not being able to pull itself, doesn't know what he's talking about. CR-V ROCKS!!!
In 1999 Honda boosted up the horsepower by about 20. I find that it has adequate power for a light SUV.
| Year of manufacture | 1998 |
| First year of ownership | 1998 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2000 |
| Engine and transmission | 2.0 petrol Automatic |
| Performance marks | 5 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 9 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 8 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 9 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 6 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
7.4 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 0 miles |
| Most recent distance | 68000 miles |
| Previous car | Rover - Austin 800 |
Summary:
Better than a RAV4 or Freelander!
Faults:
Central door locking failed.
Front elecrtic window jammed.
General Comments:
Car better than expected - but let down by poor fuel economy.
Comfortable but noisy at speed.
Dealer service excellent.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 27th September, 2000
| Year of manufacture | 1998 |
| Engine and transmission | 2.0 |
| Performance marks | 2 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 10 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 1 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 3 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 8 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
4.8 / 10
|
Faults:
Nothing as of yet.
General Comments:
This is the slowest thing I have ever driven in my life! I don't know why my husband bought this thing as a SURPRISE! I'd rather have had a Geo Tracker or a Kia Sportage!
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No
Review Date: 2nd February, 2000
You're lucky your husband buys you cars at all, and I really don't think you'd be happy in a Geo Tracker or Kia Sportage!
| Year of manufacture | 1998 |
| Engine and transmission | 2.0 |
| Performance marks | 8 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 10 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 9 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 10 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 8 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
9.0 / 10
|
Faults:
Nothing at all after 35K miles.
General Comments:
PLUS :Car in showroom condition after 35K miles. Solidly screwed together. Easy to look after. Roomy, everything where it should be. Handles well for a 4X4. Capable of shifting huge loads. Well equipped. Easily the best spec and refinement for the money. A passport to carefree motoring...
Minus: Could do with larger fuel tank as 12 gallons only good for 320 miles. Suggest 14 gallons would be better. Mirrors are electric but not heated. No locking diff for slippery conditions. Headlights have washer spray but no wipe. Alarm system still an option rather than standard.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 19th January, 2000
| Year of manufacture | 1998 |
| Engine and transmission | 2.0 |
| Performance marks | 2 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 10 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 8 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 10 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 10 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
8.0 / 10
|
Faults:
Nothing.
General Comments:
This car is underpowered big time, they need a bigger engine in these things. Besides that it's a great car.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 18th September, 1999
| Year of manufacture | 1998 |
| Engine and transmission | 2.0i 16V petrol |
| Performance marks | 9 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 10 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 8 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 10 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 6 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
8.6 / 10
|
Faults:
SRS warning light came on 1 week after delivery.
General Comments:
Excellent drive, good high position and for a car of its weight and size, the 2.0 has very good low end power.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 25th January, 1998