When browsing the 17/18 pricing threads, I notice a surprising number of people opt for the 2WD variants of the CR-V. I really don't understand why. Isn't utility one of the reasons people buy a CR-V over an Accord or Civic? Do the benefits of AWD not far exceed the costs, which are really only a small fraction of the total cost of ownership? What benefit could 2WD have over AWD? I'd be really curious to know why those who choose 2WD do so. The other thing I wonder is why does Honda even offer a 2WD CR-V? Do they really think some people eschew the CR-V if it were AWD only? Does offering 2WD variants of each trim not add further complexity and cost to the manufacturing process?
BirchBarlow
- Status
I bought mine because of its intended use. I live in South Florida, it's all flat and paved. Don't need 4WD, don't want extra complexity, don't want an extra maintenance item.
Don't want a sunroof either. To me it's just something that will leak in the future. Wish they had a higher trim level than the LX without a hole in the roof, but that's what I have to get.
Don't want a sunroof either. To me it's just something that will leak in the future. Wish they had a higher trim level than the LX without a hole in the roof, but that's what I have to get.
No need for AWD in the South. I like the space that the CR-V provides over a sedan. My wife drives it and I drive a Civic.
Some of us have driven FWD all our lives. Going from a Civic to a CRV does not mean needing the AWD. Some like the extra cargo and height. I got tired of driving sedans. And when the snow hits, it is no big deal because I know how to drive on snow. I drove a Civic for 20 years and not once needed AWD. Not having AWD means better mpg and less maintenance costs.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I don't need AWD where I live so I get zero benefits from it. The main benefit of FWD is that it's cheaper, and FWD is a less complex system than AWD so if something goes wrong it's cheaper to get fixed.
Why get AWD when you don't need it? Sure, utility is one of the reasons to get a crossover. For me that means the cargo space for the size. I live a in a city so parking is a pain and the accord is longer than the cr-v without all of the cargo space. People generally don't get a crossover to go off-roading so you're basically never going to need AWD driving on regular roads. Even if you live somewhere with snow this is going to be true for most people because AWD doesn't help with braking, only with starting. There are plenty of FWD cars in places with snow and they do fine so AWD isn't a necessary utility for most people. No reason to pay for something that's not needed.
Why get AWD when you don't need it? Sure, utility is one of the reasons to get a crossover. For me that means the cargo space for the size. I live a in a city so parking is a pain and the accord is longer than the cr-v without all of the cargo space. People generally don't get a crossover to go off-roading so you're basically never going to need AWD driving on regular roads. Even if you live somewhere with snow this is going to be true for most people because AWD doesn't help with braking, only with starting. There are plenty of FWD cars in places with snow and they do fine so AWD isn't a necessary utility for most people. No reason to pay for something that's not needed.
I bought a '15 in FWD because it gets better gas mileage and fewer parts to maintain and possibly go wrong. I've driven FWD vehicles for many years in snow, ice, and rain with no difficulties. And while driving FWD in those conditions I could always count on seeing some AWD and 4WD vehicles stuck in the ditch.
One has to know how to drive in various situations regardless of FWD or AWD. Every winter is like amateur day again on the roads for people who don't really know how to drive.
One has to know how to drive in various situations regardless of FWD or AWD. Every winter is like amateur day again on the roads for people who don't really know how to drive.
Live in the Philly area too BUT spent the winter in Arizona, 82F today. I am retired if it snows I stay home. Why pay for something I never had, AWD see no need for it. Take a look at CRV in Atlanta
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks...0&body_style=&color=&transmission=&engine=&drivetrain=&fuel_type=&page=1&sort=2
Of the 210 CRV's for sale 193 are FWD, so good luck finding an AWD in the Atlanta area, I would say if you enter any warm weather area the same would be true.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks...0&body_style=&color=&transmission=&engine=&drivetrain=&fuel_type=&page=1&sort=2
Of the 210 CRV's for sale 193 are FWD, so good luck finding an AWD in the Atlanta area, I would say if you enter any warm weather area the same would be true.
I wouldn't consider a Subaru for just that reason. We have no need for AWD and it's added cost and complexity with our weather and driving style.
People get this thing about how AWD is all about snow! Or that "90% of the time the car is in FWD only". Well, you have missed what AWD is all about and that 10% of the time its in AWD its important to be there.
I would say if you don't think you need it, fine, but please, don't fall for that stuff about "its only for snow". For most of us its more useful in rain on slick wet streets and you people driving in Florida certainly get lots more slick wet streets than I do living up North. Also, you have sand blowing around at times and when I use to go diving down there I traveled on a lot of roads with sand on them or even roads made of sand!
So, hate AWD and rationalize you don't need it, but my AWD CR-V benefits from AWD regardless of where I am, and it really shines in Florida...been there...done that. Clearly people who think it only for snow have missed something. And to be honest, those same people likely don't realize what they are missing my not having it. I have both an AWD and a FWD Honda that I drive all the time on the same streets. I can clearly demonstrate how the AWD does a better job on wet streets or streets that are dirty or if pulling over where wheels leave the pavement, etc.
There are some very good reasons why some of us no longer buy a CR-V without AWD, and its not all about snow. It is about driving on any surface that has less than perfect traction, something I see a lot in Florida, BTW.
Besides, where I live the resale value of a CR-V is greatly impacted by not having AWD. Fact is you can actually lose money by not getting it as so many just don't want a FWD model here. But, as always, YMMV.
I would say if you don't think you need it, fine, but please, don't fall for that stuff about "its only for snow". For most of us its more useful in rain on slick wet streets and you people driving in Florida certainly get lots more slick wet streets than I do living up North. Also, you have sand blowing around at times and when I use to go diving down there I traveled on a lot of roads with sand on them or even roads made of sand!
So, hate AWD and rationalize you don't need it, but my AWD CR-V benefits from AWD regardless of where I am, and it really shines in Florida...been there...done that. Clearly people who think it only for snow have missed something. And to be honest, those same people likely don't realize what they are missing my not having it. I have both an AWD and a FWD Honda that I drive all the time on the same streets. I can clearly demonstrate how the AWD does a better job on wet streets or streets that are dirty or if pulling over where wheels leave the pavement, etc.
There are some very good reasons why some of us no longer buy a CR-V without AWD, and its not all about snow. It is about driving on any surface that has less than perfect traction, something I see a lot in Florida, BTW.
Besides, where I live the resale value of a CR-V is greatly impacted by not having AWD. Fact is you can actually lose money by not getting it as so many just don't want a FWD model here. But, as always, YMMV.
"Isn't utility one of the reasons people buy a CR-V over an Accord or Civic?"
I bought it because the selection of wagons these days is pretty thin. I'd be all over a Camry/Accord/6 Wagon if I could buy one here, which I can't.
"Do the benefits of AWD not far exceed the costs, which are really only a small fraction of the total cost of ownership?"
Not for me.
"What benefit could 2WD have over AWD?"
Cheaper, lighter, less complicated. AWD becomes extra fun if you need to replace a single tire more than a few 32'nds through tread life.
"The other thing I wonder is why does Honda even offer a 2WD CR-V? Do they really think some people eschew the CR-V if it were AWD only? Does offering 2WD variants of each trim not add further complexity and cost to the manufacturing process?"
They already make a FWD-variant of the transmission, and it's precious few parts beyond that that are actually different. Most of deleting AWD involves not installing AWD parts. Honda offers FWD because it lowers the cost of the CR-V, and all their competitors except Subaru offer FWD variants. It'd jack up the price of the CR-V across the board if they forced people into taking it.
I bought it because the selection of wagons these days is pretty thin. I'd be all over a Camry/Accord/6 Wagon if I could buy one here, which I can't.
"Do the benefits of AWD not far exceed the costs, which are really only a small fraction of the total cost of ownership?"
Not for me.
"What benefit could 2WD have over AWD?"
Cheaper, lighter, less complicated. AWD becomes extra fun if you need to replace a single tire more than a few 32'nds through tread life.
"The other thing I wonder is why does Honda even offer a 2WD CR-V? Do they really think some people eschew the CR-V if it were AWD only? Does offering 2WD variants of each trim not add further complexity and cost to the manufacturing process?"
They already make a FWD-variant of the transmission, and it's precious few parts beyond that that are actually different. Most of deleting AWD involves not installing AWD parts. Honda offers FWD because it lowers the cost of the CR-V, and all their competitors except Subaru offer FWD variants. It'd jack up the price of the CR-V across the board if they forced people into taking it.
lol to hans471+. You need your AWD, that's ok. This thread is not about AWD not being relevant. I get it. AWD is nice for handling, especially for acceleration, cornering, etc. But do one needs It? It really depends on the driver, driving style and purpose for the vehicle. I will say that if you need AWD for slick roads, then you either have bad tires or you need to slow down. AWD gives drivers a false sense of confidence.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
AWD just get you going up hill - it does zero to help stop you.
Driving 50 years - FWD since 1976 - never had an issue with FWD (an Accord) and I lived in the Boston area for 10 year - never got stuck or caused an accident - but my parked car did get hit a few times.
AWD is a fantastic waste of money for 80% of the people that bought them - yes - there are some that need AWD - if you have large hills that you have to start and stop on - you might benefit from AWD - snow chains with FWD is all most people need.
Driving 50 years - FWD since 1976 - never had an issue with FWD (an Accord) and I lived in the Boston area for 10 year - never got stuck or caused an accident - but my parked car did get hit a few times.
AWD is a fantastic waste of money for 80% of the people that bought them - yes - there are some that need AWD - if you have large hills that you have to start and stop on - you might benefit from AWD - snow chains with FWD is all most people need.
I, also, live in the Philly area, and, my thinking is that a FWD vehicle would very acceptable. In visits to Honda dealers, the sales people are trained to up-sell the AWD, I heard "you really need AWD in our area", and, it was cold and snowy when I bought it early in January. That said, I bought an AWD, primarily because it was the first available in a color that my wife wanted, and, it will be her car. I can justify $1300 AWD for the small added safety for her to drive. My sense was that in Philly, there are more AWD CRV's available on the lots, weather wise, we are in-between regions where it is more clear which drive system makes the most sense.
If winter driving is a concern, get dedicated winter tires.
If winter driving is a concern, get dedicated winter tires.
Where I live, you often have to special order a 2WD CRV or equivalent vehicle. My niece bought a RAV-4 in 2WD which surprised me but she works from home. They had to special order it and it took awhile to get in. When I bought my CRV, they had no 2WD on the lot at the time. They just don't sell that many here.
I actually preferred the space in my Camry over my CRV (I could get more into it) and it was far more comfortable. If I was looking at a 2WD, I would probably buy a sedan again. They have a more comfortable ride.
While it is somewhat flat where I live, we are often dealing with horrible snow where the AWD helps. I have friends who do studs in their tires and switch their tires out 2x a year, I am not going to do that. Or chains, what a pain.
I actually preferred the space in my Camry over my CRV (I could get more into it) and it was far more comfortable. If I was looking at a 2WD, I would probably buy a sedan again. They have a more comfortable ride.
While it is somewhat flat where I live, we are often dealing with horrible snow where the AWD helps. I have friends who do studs in their tires and switch their tires out 2x a year, I am not going to do that. Or chains, what a pain.
Three northern winters and a couple of trips over the Colorado Rockies in winter (including Berthoud pass in a blizzard) and the AWD system has engaged precisely once, and only for a second or two. So I’ve had AWD active for maybe 50 feet out of 30,000 miles.
It’s near-impossible to buy a FWD CRV in the north part of the country, but I would’ve if I had the chance. Why? Less complexity, less maintenance, better fuel economy and no worries about having to replace all four tires if only one is ruined.
It’s near-impossible to buy a FWD CRV in the north part of the country, but I would’ve if I had the chance. Why? Less complexity, less maintenance, better fuel economy and no worries about having to replace all four tires if only one is ruined.
The dealership manager told me they sell one AWD vehicle for about every 8 or 9 FWD models.
She said that most people do not want to spend the extra money, they just want the car (looks,engine,interior) and don't care if it's AWD.
If I was to guess I would say your far less likely to find nearly as many FWD owners on this forum as you are Touring owners mainly because most are just casual owners with no interest in doing anything other than driving it. So IMHO the Poll is going to be heavily skewed in the AWD area, more so than what is the real case. I know when I drive around I see a lot more FWD models than I see AWD.
Rob
She said that most people do not want to spend the extra money, they just want the car (looks,engine,interior) and don't care if it's AWD.
If I was to guess I would say your far less likely to find nearly as many FWD owners on this forum as you are Touring owners mainly because most are just casual owners with no interest in doing anything other than driving it. So IMHO the Poll is going to be heavily skewed in the AWD area, more so than what is the real case. I know when I drive around I see a lot more FWD models than I see AWD.
Rob
Tire and Wheel Replacement: Our 2018 Honda CR-V Owners Manual of 673 pages is our guide to taking care of our vehicle. On page 603 it describes tire/wheel replacement. The manual states "It is best to replace all four tires at the same time. If that isn't possible, replace the front or rear tires in pairs."
No mention in the manual about the necessity of replacing all four tires if one or more tire(s) has less tread thickness than the other tires.
![]()
No mention in the manual about the necessity of replacing all four tires if one or more tire(s) has less tread thickness than the other tires.
- Status
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
