Honda Crv 2.4 Vs 2.0

[Muppetbkk]

Hi,

Has anyone out there bought either the new CRV 2.4 or 2.0 (4WD)? I am trying to decide between the two. How does the fuel consumption compare? on road driving feel? level of accessories etc etc...??

Any constructive input is appreciated

Cheers

M

[indothai]

I've got the 2007 CRV 2.4 AWD. In short, I like it but there are some shortcomings. You'll probably have a hard time trying to compare fuel consumption between the 2.4 and 2.0 AWD, driving habits, location, fuel type, ... etc.

Fuel consumption:

So far I'm I'm averaging 6 km/L over 1200 km using 91 octane fuel. 98% city driving. My dad's 2007 Camry 2.4 is about doing the same as my CRV.

Accessories:

I added exhaust finisher, DVD player with rear camera, non factory GPS (Honda Gathers, rebadged Garmin), and rear cargo cover.

Most of the newer cars being sold at this price level already has DVD with rear camera and GPS navigation... so i was a bit disappointed that the new CRV does not have the "good stuff" as standard.

Road Driving Feel:

In short, great!!! This is very subjective and you'll just have to either test drive one or just keep digging the forums. I find it not too hard and not too soft, I'm not worried about going over speed bumps or pot holes at speed. Mind you, i'm not a speed demon, it's just that when I see a pot hole or speed bump i don't have to screech to a halt or avoid it... i just drive over it. Can't say the same when I'm driving the Camry.

The CRV sits higher than most vehicles on the road, so it gives you a "command" feeling. Parking in tight spots is suprisingly good, I can park at Pantip without any problems. The hood does "swoop" down, so judging the front corners will take getting used to... or get the option at the dealer to put in front park assist.

On the highway at high speeds it drives like a small SUV. It is stable but it does have a floating feeling, high speed emergency stops will be dramatic. The Camry drives like a dream at high speeds. This is subjective... my version of high speed in a SUV is constant about 120 km/h to Don Muang or Suvarnabhumi.

I got it cause: A) Like the looks, Like cargo carrying capabilities, C) Overall size.

I got the 2.4 AWD instead of the other variants because 1) nice to have AWD nice to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it, 2) under powered car is worse than gas guzzler.

Overall, I'm happy with the purchase, I did my own research extensively before getting it so I highly suggest you do the same.

Good luck.

[Spaniel]

We just orderd the new CRV but wont pick it up until late April so I cant really give any actual driving info but we decided on the 2000cc 4WD model. I did test drive all three models but must admit I could'nt tell much difference but then the test area was just driving around the block. We sold our 1999 model CRV last week, which we bought new, and it had the 2000cc/4wd and it was peppy enough for me. indothai's 6km/liter doesn't sound very good but that is the bigger engine and city driving. Several weeks ago I read an article that something like 70%of the CRV's sold here in Thailand were the 2000cc/4wd model. Dont know if that will influence your decision but maybe the majority knows something!! Of course that statistic may have changed by now.

[danone]

had ordered the 2.0 2wd first, switched to the 2.0 4wd and finally decided for the 2.4 4wd, which should arrive next week.

why?

have been driving a crv '02 2.0 4wd so far. overall gasoline consumption was pretty good (with a lot of highway driving) at around 12 lts per 100 kms.

on highways alone i could manage 9lts/100kms. but that also depends on the driving style.

why i went for the 2.4 now?

just have a look at the engine of the 2.0: its a pretty small engine for that car.

when i did a test drive the performance was clearly not up to expectation - worse than my old crv 02. acceleration was pretty poor.

at another garage i could test drive a 2.4. that was the proper performance and acceleration.

the 2.4 i could test there actually belonged to an owner already. he came along for the drive and told me he'd been driving the former crv as well and that gasoline consumption was quite different now.

with the old one he had to fill in the tank all the time. the new one so far, he said, needed quite less gasoline.

the onboard features such as the cruise control and gasoline meter will help control gasoline consumption as well.

overall: i came to the conclusion that the 2.0 is a rather big bluff. this car needs the 2.4 engine. its some 1,500 kgs heavy! many would want it with a V6 in there.

and it doesnt mean that the bigger engine consumes more gasoline. as the smaller engine has to work harder to reach the appropriate output.

but then again, it also depends on what you use the car for. if its only and purely city driving, i'd go for the 2000 2wd.

but i do a lot of provincial driving and like the comfort of sufficient engine power.

the add-ons coming with the 2.4 are also worth to mention.

good luck with your choice!

Edited March 24, 2007 by danone

[Plus]

I remember Honda introduced 2.4l engine in CRV to pep up sales and because 2.0 was deemed inadequate. They also claimed better fuel consumption from 2.4l. It was only a couple years ago, sales of CRV nearly stopped since then. Difficult to say if 70% still buy 2l engines, it was the only choice for almost a decade.

People assume that smaller engine consumes less fuel and they don't need performance from CRV, and they don't want to pay premium price for something unnecessary.

Just check how many 2.0 Camries/Tianas and Accords are out there.

[chanchao]

(*#$&(*^ right 2.0 is inadequate. I rented one once. Ok for mum to drive to Tesco, but I drove it between Khon Kaen and Chiang Mai, which is hilly in parts. What an abject disaster. Not sure if I hated the engine or the auto gearbox more. I guess the engine, as it also sucked fuel like, well, think of something colorful. A 10 year old diesel clunker of a pick-up actually would have been preferable. (not to mention much cheaper in fuel)

So, would the 2.4 latest model be better? I suggest to go drive it (better, rent it for a day) and take it for a serious spin.

Edited March 26, 2007 by chanchao

[farangene]

(*#$&(*^ right 2.0 is inadequate. I rented one once. Ok for mum to drive to Tesco, but I drove it between Khon Kaen and Chiang Mai, which is hilly in parts. What an abject disaster. Not sure if I hated the engine or the auto gearbox more. I guess the engine, as it also sucked fuel like, well, think of something colorful. A 10 year old diesel clunker of a pick-up actually would have been preferable. (not to mention much cheaper in fuel)

So, would the 2.4 latest model be better? I suggest to go drive it (better, rent it for a day) and take it for a serious spin.

We have a 5 yr old 2.0 crv with very low mileage (30K KM). Whenever we want to pass or go up a hill, we turn the a/c off until we have passed or made it up the hill. Otherwise, it is fine.

[danone]

We have a 5 yr old 2.0 crv with very low mileage (30K KM). Whenever we want to pass or go up a hill, we turn the a/c off until we have passed or made it up the hill. Otherwise, it is fine.

are you serious!? never tried that one.

the old 2.0 engine was a dohc, the new one is a sohc. doesnt mean its an inferior technology, its just a more simple technology that mainly aims to save gasoline.

again, ask yourself what you need the car for. in the city you dont need the 2.4. on highways though you appreciate a certain amount of extra power.

let us know how you decide.

[indothai]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YSVoRoCgB9o

Hope this helps with your decision, if you haven't come to one yet.

[Gary A]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear that the 2.4 gets better mileage than the 2.0. The bigger engine simply doesn't have to work as hard. Many people perceive that the smaller the engine the better the fuel economy. That's not always true.

[Muppetbkk]

Decided to go for the 2.0 4WD.

Spoken to three people who have bought 2.4l and they are getting around 5-6 kml whereas a friend has now got the 2.0l and is getting between 9-10 kml (both a mix of city and expressway driving)

Anyway ...now have to wait for 3 weeks for delivery

Cheers for the input everyone

M

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear that the 2.4 gets better mileage than the 2.0. The bigger engine simply doesn't have to work as hard. Many people perceive that the smaller the engine the better the fuel economy. That's not always true.

[danone]

Decided to go for the 2.0 4WD.

Spoken to three people who have bought 2.4l and they are getting around 5-6 kml whereas a friend has now got the 2.0l and is getting between 9-10 kml (both a mix of city and expressway driving)

Anyway ...now have to wait for 3 weeks for delivery

Cheers for the input everyone

M

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear that the 2.4 gets better mileage than the 2.0. The bigger engine simply doesn't have to work as hard. Many people perceive that the smaller the engine the better the fuel economy. That's not always true.

now that sounds like fuzzy math to me - double consumption - if you'd have said 20% more for the 2.4 i'd believe you.

only city driving yes. with provinces? impossible.

but then again, the 2.4 is 190,000 baht more which for many may make the difference.

try to give us an update about your fuel economy once you drove your car for a few weeks.

i will observe mine too, then we can compare the 2.0 and 2.4 in a more scientific way.

Edited March 31, 2007 by danone

[danone]

muppet:

here are some more solid figures than yours regarding the fuel economy.

scroll down the list and you'll see the 2.0 engines (older dohc's):

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?acti...odel=CR-V%204WD

key is the driving style sir.

[danone]

muppet:

a first driving test with the 2.4:

stop and go inner city driving, some faster vibhavadee road (to chatuchak) and back, with quite some waiting at intersections and - again - stop and go accelleration:

54 kms at an average 8 km/lt, my meter shows.

91 gasoline (not gasohol)

no out of bangkok highway driving yet.

its a mystery to me how the three people you spoke to get the 5-6lt WITH express way driving.

i keep you posted about highway driving.

[danone]

got nearly 1000 kms with the 2.4.

overall fuel consumption since beginning: exactly 10.0 km/lt

last two drives bkk - hua hin - bkk: 12.9 km/lt

i'd call that a rather good fuel economy.

again muppetbkk: perhaps your "sources" only drive stop-and-go in bangkok with cold engines. go figure yourself why they use twice as much gasoline as my meter shows.

[solopilot]

Most of us realize that driving style can have a strong effect on mileage. But just how much? Here's my personal experience with CRV mileage: I drive a 2.0L CRV (2002), and a close family friend also owns the same model year CRV. She often complains about much fuel it burns up, and says she gets between 6-7 km/L in the city (she rarely goes upcountry, so she doesn't know what her highway mileage is.)

On the other hand, I usually average 9-10 k/L in the city. On my trips upcountry (i.e., BKK-Chiang Rai, BKK-Trang, BKK-Ubon) I've never averaged below 10 km/L, and usually get between 11-12 km/L. On one segment heading to Chiang Mai during the cool season, I turned off the A/C and limited my speed to 100 kph. Result? Got over 13 km/L on that tank of gas. Of course, it isn't practical to drive that way all the time, but it was interesting to me to know that it's possible.

The upshot of all this is that mileage reports don't mean all that much until you can factor in driving style and driving conditions (traffic, terrain, etc.)

Tip: For those of you who own a VTEC Honda (i.e. CRV, Civics, Accords, etc.) and want to improve your mileage, first check out VTEC on google or wikipedia so you have a basic understanding of what it is (in case you had no idea). Then avoid getting into the high-rpm VTEC mode (when the rpms quickly shoot upward and the car surges ahead.) Although it's often fun to feel the car take off when high-power, low-efficiency VTEC mode kicks in, it's sucking up a huge amount of gas and it's not so fun when you see your bill at the pump.

[danone]

2'300 kms so far.

meter B, which has not been changed since i got the car, shows an overall gasoline consumption of

10.6 kms/lt

meter A on a recent trip to hua hin:

12.8 kms/lt

[indothai]

2'300 kms so far.

meter B, which has not been changed since i got the car, shows an overall gasoline consumption of

10.6 kms/lt

meter A on a recent trip to hua hin:

12.8 kms/lt

Pretty good numbers. I'm getting only 6.5 or 7 at best in the city, stop and go driving.

My highway numbers are much better.

I've just recently switch to Gasohol... going to give it 3 or 4 tank fill ups before taking notes on the gas consumption.

[danone]

indothai:

stop and go in bangkok makes every car thirsty. i did quite some highway driving.

there is hardly a car in bangkok that makes 8 or more kms/lt.

regarding gasohol: after not-so-good-gasohol-experiences with my old crv 02 i only get the proper 91, which definitively increases mileage.

just drove down to hua hin again: 13.5 kms/lt

[Maigo6]

2'300 kms so far.

meter B, which has not been changed since i got the car, shows an overall gasoline consumption of

10.6 kms/lt

meter A on a recent trip to hua hin:

12.8 kms/lt

Similar figures to my Toyota Fortuner,

I done a trip before from Phu Kradung to Pattaya sometimes hitting 170KPH and averaged 10.8 Kms/ltr, I also done the same trip taking it easier and got 12.8 Kms/ltr.

So yes, driving style drastically alters gas consumption.

Edited May 1, 2007 by Maigo6