Proof gen 2 is FULLY Capable for its class - Page 2
  1. Welcome to Honda CR-V Owners Club - Home – General discussion forum for Honda CR-V

    Welcome to Honda CR-V Owners Club - Home - a website dedicated to all things Honda CR-V.

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, Join Honda CR-V Owners Club - Home today!
     
Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Proof gen 2 is FULLY Capable for its class

  1. #11
    crv|oc Rank: Junior Wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    SCS, MI
    Posts
    530
    Thanks (Received)
    33
    I'm also taking into account the torque specs of the engine. In years past, just as one example, the GMs I drove always had a lot of low-end torque (especially when you first hit the throttle), yet past maybe 3,000 RPM their engines always went flat, with hardly any acceleration. Hondas are known to have a wider torque band, with the peaks coming at higher RPMs. And @BDub also makes a good point about the altitude--I hadn't figured on that. A combination of all that and the gearing is why I struggled a little on that one switchback. (And you know, it's that slight panic attack as it's happening, as I didn't have enough gas to drive all the way around the loop for 60-70 miles and come out the other end!)

    My tires are also slightly larger than stock (235s vs. 225s), so the slight additional mass robs a tiny bit of power, and larger diameter also acts against the gearing. But it's probably so slight that it's not even worth mentioning.

    I've had the '09 up to the top of Pike's Peak (14,115 ft.), but other than having no guardrails for much of the trip, it's an easy drive and I had no issues. I figured if that Karmann Ghia I followed could make it to the top, I'd have no problems either.

    I'm sure Acura's SH-AWD is even better but I can't say that Honda's seemingly low-tech AWD system has ever let me down in routine driving. It's simple, and it just works. There's something to be said for simplicity!
    2009 CR-V EX-L / 2009 CR-V EX-L #2 / 2004 Civic LX / 1997 CR-V LX / 2002 Accord EX-L V6

  2. Remove Advertisements
    CR-V Owners Club
    Advertisements
     

  3. #12
    crv|oc Rank: Junior Wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    SCS, MI
    Posts
    530
    Thanks (Received)
    33
    I'm also taking into account the torque specs of the engine. In years past, just as one example, the GMs I drove always had a lot of low-end torque (especially when you first hit the throttle), yet past maybe 3,000 RPM their engines always went flat, with hardly any acceleration. Hondas are known to have a wider torque band, with the peaks coming at higher RPMs. And @BDub also makes a good point about the altitude--I hadn't figured on that. A combination of all that and the gearing is why I struggled a little on that one switchback. (And you know, it's that slight panic attack as it's happening, as I didn't have enough gas to drive all the way around the loop for 60-70 miles and come out the other end!)

    My tires are also slightly larger than stock (235s vs. 225s), so the slight additional mass robs a tiny bit of power, and larger diameter also acts against the gearing. But it's probably so slight that it's not even worth mentioning.

    I've had the '09 up to the top of Pike's Peak (14,115 ft.), but other than having no guardrails for much of the trip, it's an easy drive and I had no issues. I figured if that Karmann Ghia I followed could make it to the top, I'd have no problems either.

    I'm sure Acura's SH-AWD is even better but I can't say that Honda's seemingly low-tech AWD system has ever let me down in routine driving. It's simple, and it just works. There's something to be said for simplicity!
    2009 CR-V EX-L / 2009 CR-V EX-L #2 / 2004 Civic LX / 1997 CR-V LX / 2002 Accord EX-L V6

  4. #13
    crv|oc Rank: Senior Tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,876
    Thanks (Received)
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by BDub View Post
    Altitude will start to make your engine struggle too. I think the figure is something like 3% power loss for every 1000 feet above sea level. So where Wildcat is running, according to the Google machine, is about 6000 feet above sea level. I've never ran anything at elevations higher than between 2-3000 feet, so I can't say what affect it would have.
    It's barely 1% likely not even that. 3%+ was old figure still thrown around from the days of Carburators.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  5. Remove Advertisements
    CR-V Owners Club
    Advertisements
     

  6. #14
    crv|oc Rank: Senior Tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,876
    Thanks (Received)
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildcat View Post
    I'm also taking into account the torque specs of the engine. In years past, just as one example, the GMs I drove always had a lot of low-end torque (especially when you first hit the throttle), yet past maybe 3,000 RPM their engines always went flat, with hardly any acceleration. Hondas are known to have a wider torque band, with the peaks coming at higher RPMs. And @BDub also makes a good point about the altitude--I hadn't figured on that. A combination of all that and the gearing is why I struggled a little on that one switchback. (And you know, it's that slight panic attack as it's happening, as I didn't have enough gas to drive all the way around the loop for 60-70 miles and come out the other end!)

    My tires are also slightly larger than stock (235s vs. 225s), so the slight additional mass robs a tiny bit of power, and larger diameter also acts against the gearing. But it's probably so slight that it's not even worth mentioning.

    I've had the '09 up to the top of Pike's Peak (14,115 ft.), but other than having no guardrails for much of the trip, it's an easy drive and I had no issues. I figured if that Karmann Ghia I followed could make it to the top, I'd have no problems either.

    I'm sure Acura's SH-AWD is even better but I can't say that Honda's seemingly low-tech AWD system has ever let me down in routine driving. It's simple, and it just works. There's something to be said for simplicity!
    Every little bit adds up though.

    If your wanting something to do more regular adventures like that, I would advise looking at something with more proper FWD. Doesn't need to be fancy, but needs low range. Best option, Toyota. Similar power band to other 4wd vehicles so lacking higher RPM but like Honda, last forever. If I lived out where I could drive places like you are, I'd have one or an older Jeep before Chrysler sold out and the went to crap like the rest of Chrysler products.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  7. #15
    crv|oc Rank: Junior BDub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    North Mississippi
    Posts
    859
    Thanks (Received)
    79
    -Brent

    2018 Honda Accord 2.0T Touring
    2012 Honda Civic Si
    2006 Honda CR-V EX 6 Speed Manual 4WD
    2000 Honda CR-V EX 4 Speed Automatic 4WD

  8. #16
    crv|oc Rank: Senior Tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,876
    Thanks (Received)
    244
    Except read all of it, the claims that "acuras are suited for the changes". Modern fuel injection adapts quite well, has for probably the last 15 or so years. Prior you had to reset the ECM so it would relearn the drastic new condition change or you could see at much as 3%

    6 yr old Dodge ram towing a 7*12 the loss in power was maybe 10% total over the total drive through the Rockies.

    They are using that as a selling point (marketing hype using outdated information), but the numbers aren't that high anymore. 3-5% was carberated and early versions of fuel injection. Part of why they went to having mass air flow meters, more efficient way of adjusting to elevation change.

    Trips from Illinois to California when I was a kid we had to stop a few times so my dad could adjust the carb on our old doge conversion van because we we're LOADED. Last family trip was in a Honda Accord (late 90s) and with 4 of us plus bags it did amazing. Finally got my dad off carbs and replaced even his Jeep with a newer fuel injected model (his first one was first gen fuel injection which still wasn't great).

    Not saying at 6000 feet he wasn't loosing some power but 18% no way. Thing wouldn't be able to get out of it's own way.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  9. #17
    crv|oc Rank: Junior BDub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    North Mississippi
    Posts
    859
    Thanks (Received)
    79
    See, there we are talking about the computers ability to adjust the fuel mixture. They can absolutely adapt to the differences in useable oxygen in the air to make the engine run correctly. But, it still doesn’t mean there is no power loss. Ultimately, at higher altitudes the air density is lower and the computer takes away fuel so the mixture is correct. Less air + less fuel = less power. Now having said that, I have no idea what its like to drive at high altitudes. It may not be that noticeable in a modern vehicle.
    -Brent

    2018 Honda Accord 2.0T Touring
    2012 Honda Civic Si
    2006 Honda CR-V EX 6 Speed Manual 4WD
    2000 Honda CR-V EX 4 Speed Automatic 4WD

  10. #18
    crv|oc Rank: Senior Tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,876
    Thanks (Received)
    244
    Ya I'm not saying there is no power loss. It's just a lot less of a loss than your thinking. Loss of 15% of power in say Denver, we would have a ton of CRV owners on here complaining about MPG and such.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  11. #19
    crv|oc Rank: Junior Wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    SCS, MI
    Posts
    530
    Thanks (Received)
    33
    Aside from Pike's Peak (which is not a fast drive), I have been over plenty of mountain passes, like Wilkerson Pass, Hoosier Pass, etc., and didn't have any real issues, as there are usually switchbacks that keep the speeds low, and I'm often in second or first gear anyway (auto trans).

    But there is one entrance ramp on I-70 coming out of Frisco, CO, where if I don't get enough speed on the entrance ramp (I think it's exit 201), I am stuck on the freeway doing 45 MPH, foot to the floor, and the speed staying constant or dropping slightly as everyone blows past me going 70 MPH or more, and it takes at least a half mile or more before I can finally start creeping up. This is where I wish I had a blast of nitrous oxide to give me a shove up the mountain.
    2009 CR-V EX-L / 2009 CR-V EX-L #2 / 2004 Civic LX / 1997 CR-V LX / 2002 Accord EX-L V6

  12. Remove Advertisements
    CR-V Owners Club
    Advertisements
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Hello! Most offroad capable years for Honda CRV?
    By fuzzybabybunny in forum Greetings & Introductions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-07-2018, 01:10 PM
  2. Fully Slammed 1st Gen
    By burtonbrd138 in forum Tires, Wheels and Suspensions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-17-2018, 12:02 PM
  3. Recommendations for All Season, Snow Capable Tire
    By PHK1853 in forum Tires, Wheels and Suspensions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-03-2017, 01:44 PM
  4. How capable is the 2011 CRV in terms of outdoor stuff?
    By Everymanalion in forum Miscellaneous / General CR-V Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-02-2017, 07:48 PM
  5. Class 1 to Class 3 hitch conundrum
    By Shadetreemechanic in forum Racks, Hitches and Towing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-17-2015, 05:21 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.3.0