2004 Honda CR-V SE Sport from UK and Ireland - Comments

Nothing - so far and I do not expect anything to go wrong.

This 4 x4 is well built, easy to drive & comfortable. it is also good fun.

Believe it or not I will require the

4x4 function every couple of months as we I have family up north who live on working farms - and it is impossible to get a two wheel drive car up their drive I have been up once in the CR-V

since I got it and it made light work of the task.

The Picnic table in the boot is great throw a couple of collapsible chairs in the boot and a picnic basket and your away very civilised.

As I said above the car is up to Honda's usual High standards with regard to build quality and engine wise the 2.0 i-vtec is superb

plus the retained values are something else to put a smile on your face.

How can you say that it copes with off road circumstances, we went to an airshow in ours and it rained, the grass went slick and the honda did not move. Even more embarrasing is that we had to get a tow from a Citroen Berlingo.

Because I can I have had my CR-V off road and it has coped very well indeed.

Was it being towed as well?

I believe a car got stuck in water soaked soil is mainly due to driving technique.

Coz I have seen it many times, whether it is a sedan, mpv, suv or what have you.

I have not had one problem with the 4wd system.

I have had the car on muddy tracks, and snow and ice - no slippage, no scary moments.

A good car - just don't go to far off road.

My CR-V has a serious reliability problem. I acquired my 2.0 2WD CR-V in July 2004 and since then, the front (driver's side) shock-breaker has broken down twice and the dash makes a very annoying rattle till today. I had the car repaired at the dealer's workshop, but the rattle keeps coming back! I just hope the shock-breaker won't break down another time or it'll be a nightmare after the warranty period ends. I am certainly not happy at all with my CR-V and I would've been better off choosing another SUV at the same price.

Yep mine got stuck and got pulled out by a Audi A6 QUATTRO.

I have to say that the people complaining about their CR-V's are either taking their card to far off road or are not fully aware how to drive off road.

My CR-V has been over several fields without any problems, yes even muddy ones. What people need to remember that they are not driving a Defender, Discovery or Pathfinder. The CR-V does have a 4x4 system which does work when used properly and not driven up the side of a mountain.

Have had my crv some time now, what a great suv, so quiet and smooth. never got stuck on grass??? are you sure you selected

drive...honda well done...

No, it is definitely not an off-road vehicle:

1) The tires are too small

2) The petrol tank hangs really low (I almost lost mine when I hit a stone), and in general all mechanical parts are too exposed

3) The AWD works only when one wheel has started slipping and doesn't transmit enough torque unless the engine really goes fast (that is, when the other front wheel has also started slipping) : that's OK in mud or sand, but I guarantee it is useless on slippery stones (I know it, once we got stuck trying to climb a steep slope on a dirt road in the mountain. The worse thing was to watch an old truck loaded with two tons of bricks overtake us and go on climbing).

I wonder why Honda uses this AWD system instead of the electronically controlled one you find on the Nissan Xtrail, for example, and that allows to lock the center diff...

I strongly disagree with the last comment. Yes, it has small wheels and the petrol tank is low, but it can go off road. A friend of mine took his through a ploughed field no problem!!

And I drive on off road tracks and through some fields once or twice a month. The car is two years old and it's not a problem for it.

The Cr-V is not a 4x4 vehicle. People should know the difference between 4x4 and Awd or 4wd before attempting to buy an SUV.

I have had both. For the off road drive works 4x4 the best, but for on the road drive, is more comfortable the 2wd or the Awd. So, if you want to have more adherence on wet grass, mud or snow, then buy a 4x4 vehicle, it is more expensive and harder to drive, but it has a better traction off road.

My actual 2006 Cr-V is a Fwd, and it does everything that I need for my daily use, and does it in a very comfortable way. My former vehicle was a 4x4 SUV, and I never had the need to use it in the 4x4 position.

The previous comment is correct: all-wheel drive is different than four-wheel drive. A CRV is not an off-road vehicle, it is meant to get to work and the grocery store and give you an edge in inclement weather by giving you better traction with all-wheel drive and perhaps a little better ground clearance for snow. Driving across a smooth hay field or a rutted country driveway is probably the maximum extent of "off-roading" that this vehicle should attempt. To be fair, that is all that most people really need, anyway, so this should suit them. All-wheel drive requires a complicated system that keeps all the wheels pulling as drive wheels, yet allows them to turn at different rates when going around corners or sensing when some wheels need more traction. If you want to go off-road, then you go for the four-wheel drive, which is not suitable for dry pavement because the solid axles are meant to stay engaged and not slip, which is a more rugged design. Driving over rocks, logs, and muddy ruts, then you are looking at the Defender, or a different model Honda such as the Titan pickup. Building four-wheel drive, off-road capable vehicles is something that American companies do very well and probably offer the broadest selection. So when you think "off-road" picture the Honda CRV compared to the Ford F-250 or Dodge 1500 pickup (i.e. 18 inch rims and sitting nearly 2 feet off the ground), Jeep Rubicon, etc. Nobody will be complaining about getting stuck in wet grass with those vehicles, but of course they are not practical as daily commuters, either. As has been said, buy the vehicle that suits your needs, and don't press it beyond its limits.

I completely agree with the last comment. I live in Mexico (where roads are full of potholes and stones) and bought my CR-V to: i) go to work and shopping comfortably, ii) be able to travel rural roads and dirt roads without having to worry too much about ground clearance, iii) have a safe vehicle in the case of an accident, iv) I thought there would be some 4wd capabilities and that the suspension would be a bit stronger and last longer than on a normal car.

Now, about the first three points, the CR-V has been perfect, but about the fourth point, I was completely unhappy. After 50000 km (I agree, with quite a lot of potholes), and maybe 2000 km on dirt roads and half an hour in careful "off road" conditions, the suspension (shocks and rubber mounts) sounds quite worn out, and complains on every speed bump. I think the design of the front suspension (Mc Pherson struts) is not adequate for "rough" (bad roads) conditions. I think the post from Indonesia is proof of this. Not to mention off road... And about the 4wd capabilities, I know the difference since I also have a 4x4 toyota pickup (best car I've ever had, 500000 km and not a failure yet). I've been to the same places, and couldn't believe the CR-V got stuck there... Anyway, I can't understand why Honda uses this stupid hydraulic system instead of a central electric clutch that one can really lock, like on Nissan pathfinders of X-trails...)