The CR-V is the top seller also because females like the size and look of the CR-V.My wife absolutely loved it.25 more HP and I would have bought it in a heartbeat.
I drove it and it handles very well and is solid and peppy but hit a hill and it will downshift often.The EX-L's interior is really nice for the cost.Front seating comfort was excellent too.
The RAV4 interior is like you said,plastic,cheap looking,drab and boring.The '11 RAV4 will have a new design.Let's see if Toyota does something about the cheap interior.

 

The problem with the CRV is the lawn mower engine, low, unrefine and under power. Honda really mess up when they design the CRV's hood so short, now they cannot put a V6 in their if they wanted to. The RAV V6 is a model of efficency, my wife had both the I4 and the V6. The city gas mileage were very close between the two, and the power difference is like day and night. The RAV V6 use to be able to keep up with my GS350 and I once put a love seat sofa in the cargo area where my GX470 cannot fit.
Like some have stated, the RAV's interior is its short coming, but it pretty much excel in all other catagory with flying color.

 

Of course my personal preference in an SUV is to have 200+ hp.

But the CRV really doesn't have a problem from a automotive business standpoint, being the best-selling SUV in the US. One thing I noticed about the engine driving the CRV (besides the only adequate power) was the better than usual level of refinement for a 4 cylinder engine, (the balance shaft does help).

 

Honda use to make one heck of a 4 cyl engine, but like many of has beens, the rest of the automotive world have already caught up and some have already pass them as far as 4 cyl engines. I cannot remember the last time I seen a Honda engine on Ward's 10 best engine list.

 

Yes, I was only speaking about (CRV) superior refinement in comparison to other 4-bangers, not other technical aspects. Personally I don't find any 4 cylinder engines to have a level of refinement, smoothness, hi-perf premium sound when working under load and at high revs that I demand.

Amazing how the CRV holds onto the top-selling SUV spot in the US despite the 4-banger, so in this case they know what they are doing (unlike the RL, RSX, TL).

 

Is the Cadillac SRX too big/expensive for this class? I saw one at a car show recently (wasn't looking for an SUV but it was right next to the CTS-V ) and it looked pretty nice.

 

It's not necessarily too big in physical size (substantially smaller than the last SRX), but definitely too expensive. An optioned-out SRX can run twice what these vehicles do.

If you are interested, here's my recent 2010 SRX review:

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/car...illac-srx.html

 

It's not necessarily females that make the CR-V popular. Quality and nice materials can appeal to anyone. When I was shopping for my Outback, the CR-V was among my Top 5 choices.

 

Thanks for the link to your review! We're not really in the market for one, nor have the need for it, but my g/f really liked it. Maybe in a couple years this will be something to consider.

 

Honda has a long history of doing "refined", smooth, quiet fours with a silky-smooth idle, but, especially with the VTEC engineering (which Honda itself developed from Formula 1), they had a tendency to be mostly high-RPM-HP with very little low-RPM torque. Even max torque, at high-RPM, was not that strong. One exception to this rule, ironically, is the CRV's four itself. It was Honda's first U.S.-market four with a torque figure to match its HP rating....160/160 (now up to about 180). Another exception, of course, is the turbo 4 in the Acura RDX, with plenty of low-RPM torque, though it does have some slight turbo lag.




It's not amazing at all when you look at how well it is built. This vehicle doesn't have drag-strip power, but it can (and does) seduce with its combination of all-weather capability, versatility, high-quality materials and (sorry, I know you don't like the term)........Swiss-watch build quality (it is one of the most reliable vehicles in Consumer Reports' database) . The Subaru Outback, like the CR-V, is also an outstanding all-around buy...but in a slightly different way.

 

No problem about the overused and non relevant use of the term.

The success of the CRV is no mystery to me either. The CRV is a runaway success compared to the Outback and compared to the other bigger-engined competitors, none are close in terms of sales.

 

The CRV is driven mostly by female here in the Northeast. I would say the CRV would have Swiss-watch build quality if swiss watch was build with cheap material. The interior of the CRV is above average compare to cars in this price range, but the thin sheet matal, cheap suspension parts and the under power engine just doesnt inspire quality to me. If the buyer dont care about power and dont know much about sheet metal and mechnical components, then yes, the CRV does look good on the inside.

 

The 2011 Rav4 is rumored that it will return to a 4-cylinder configuration only. But it will have a hybrid option as well.

Therefore, this V6 anomaly may be a one-generation issue.

Other than that, I don't see the Rav4 excessively improving build material. Build quality via engineering: yes (as Mmarshall puts it, Swiss watch quality). But I don't think the materials used will significantly change because the Rav4 will always be an entry-level SUV with many plastic surfaces and materials.

 

I think Toyota is getting the GM sickness, now that Toyota is # 1, they are determine to make some of the cheapest interiors in the industry.

 

The GMC is not a 'cute-ute'. It looks like a bulldozer.