Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Honda CR-V has terrible pick up. I would never buy another.
Thanks. This is really great feedback considering you have one. I've been very reluctant to even waste my time to go drive one because of the CVT transmission, but I want to see why so many retirees prefer CUV's and SUV's. I don't know of any other small compact SUV/CUV that would be considered more reliable, have longevity or have better pick up other than a RAV4, and I don't like how it looks as much. Since I keep my cars forever, I just don't want to make a mistake with what could be my last car, and my goal is to reduce stress in my life, not increase it! I'm exhausted from trying to protect myself as a consumer. I wish they would have just left cars alone. I'd rather get less in gas mileage and have a more reliable car. I search and search, and I always end up back with a 2019 or 2020 Camry despite the fact that the majority of retirees don't like sedans. Even though I wasn't crazy about the acceleration with the Camry I test drove either, I keep reminding myself what someone on one of my other posts said (see below). I think it was also on that post where someone was nice enough to provide the Consumer Reports reliability details of the Camry, which I really appreciated because it made me feel better. I just wish I knew what other cars that Consumer Reports recommends and that has an overall green recommended rating as to reliability.
Driveability and reliability don’t always go hand in hand. I may hate the way a transmission shifts or the way an engine sounds, but that doesn’t mean the vehicle is unreliable. At the same time, it’s possible to love everything about the way a car drives, yet it be a big POS that stays in the shop all the time.
I have no idea what that means, why to avoid them and what cars that would entail. I did a quick Google search, but it was way over my head.
It just means that they force the gasoline in under very high pressure directly where the piston lives rather than having it sucked in when the piston goes down. There appear to be long-term maintenance side effects that haven't been worked out.
Generally, I'd say that this last generation of gasoline engines is over-complex. They add a lot of stuff at this point to get a little payback. I think it makes sense that a lot of car companies are holding back on new models or dropping whole lines at this point. It's likely they're all scared that batteries improve just enough that there's a wholesale switchover and all that R&D money was for nought.
It just means that they force the gasoline in under very high pressure directly where the piston lives rather than having it sucked in when the piston goes down. There appear to be long-term maintenance side effects that haven't been worked out.
Generally, I'd say that this last generation of gasoline engines is over-complex. They add a lot of stuff at this point to get a little payback. I think it makes sense that a lot of car companies are holding back on new models or dropping whole lines at this point. It's likely they're all scared that batteries improve just enough that there's a wholesale switchover and all that R&D money was for nought.
I suppose you'd rather they went back to carburetors? Where's you get the " long-term maintenance side effects that haven't been worked out" factoid. Fact is that direct injection has been around for oh, about 120 years now, in diesel engines.
If you think gas engines are complex now, you should become acquainted with those from the late 70s and early 80s, with first generation pollution controls. I'd love for you to show me some of the "stuff" with little payback. For those of us who've worked with, and rebuilt, motors for decades, motors these days are a dream compared to the mechanical kludges used in years past. Ever rebuild a distributor? Compare the vacuum and centrifugal advance mechanisms to modern electronic engine controls. Yes, sensors can fail. And the engine management system will tell you, through an error code, what failed. And it does not happen often.
For the OP, be aware that Toyota has had its share of duds including Camrys in some years. Personally, the least reliable car I ever had was a Camry, which had two transmissions go out, and had a very leaky rear main oil seal on top of that. Kept it until around 190K (hard to say exactly, since the odometer went out too) until the engine could no longer pass inspection due to wear. And yes, I followed the maintenance schedule closely, including transmission service.
Thanks so much everyone for your great feedback and words of wisdom. I guess the majority of retirees aren’t any different than the general population - most people prefer an SUV or CUV – but it’s interesting to learn your reasons for wanting these instead of a sedan. Once I test drive a couple of CUV’s, I’ll update my thread. I’m anxious to see what I’m missing and if I feel the same as most people.
Primarily, I love the utility of my RAV4. I've slept in it on multiple occasions, (I'm 6'3" tall). I can carry my bicycle inside if needed and have made trips where I've had a kayak on top along with two bicycles and two more bicycles on the rear hitch bike rack. It has taken me on the dirt forest roads in North Idaho and went through 12" of snow on the ground without any problems. Have been getting around 28 miles per gallon on regular grade gasoline.
Seems to be pretty safe too. My first Adventure model was rear-ended by a jacked-up Silverado pickup truck. He had to be towed. I was able to drive home. Car was totaled and I immediately replaced it with another the same, except for color. Only thing I wish was different is the lack of a CD player. My current RAV4 does not have one, but that can be fixed with an after-market unit.
With your stated quality of being frugal, take a look at a RAV4 hybrid. Sure, it has a CVT, but Toyota does not introduce technology until it is well proven. CVTs in the Prius have been around for a long time now without any major concerns. The RAV4 hybrid CVT has been available since 2016, again without issues. It is almost always a "Recommended" product on Consumer Reports. My Lexus RX400H, (a Toyota product), was a AWD hybrid and I sold it after 200,000 miles of trouble free use. The person I sold it to is still using it three years later, still trouble free.
Free hint: Most public libraries have archive copies of Consumer Reports. April is their annual auto issue and if you have a Costco nearby, Consumer Reports seem to always have some special auto issue for sale on the magazine rack.
I suppose you'd rather they went back to carburetors? Where's you get the " long-term maintenance side effects that haven't been worked out" factoid. Fact is that direct injection has been around for oh, about 120 years now, in diesel engines.
'cuz, you know, those strawmen are ever so fun to argue with on the internet.
I quick googling will show you plenty of direct injection issues, and I'll hold with the notion that ICE technology on the margin has gotten far more expensive for less and less ROI. Thank God EVs seem close to being reasonable.
Are brand new implementations better? Probably. Does it matter who the manufacturer is (and general design details)? Probably. Are there benefits? Yeah, some. It is just one more expense and bit of complexity (complete with side effects causing yet more complexity)? You betcha.
In the final analysis, some people love their unreliable car and others hate their reliable car. Generally, I've found that people will typically strongly recommend and fight for whatever they own themselves. There's some sort of fallacy there, but I don't know just what to call it.
Personally, I'm staying out of the new car world until I buy one that plugs into the wall.
OP, Unless I missed it, you didn't really say what your criteria was, except that you wanted it to last 20-years and are now 60-years old.
The first (20-years) would tend to eliminate many of the newer, low-end vehicles. The second (60 ... not very 'senior') might suggest an SUV, letting you sit up higher and see more of what is happening around you ... and perhaps give you a little better protection from the high percentage of SUV's and larger vehicles on the road today.
My in-laws recently purchased a Subaru Outback. We have a Honda CR-V. I would suggest looking into both of these vehicles. As a side note when I retire I want to buy a sports car, like a Corvette or BMW M3.
At this point in my life, I don’t have any problems getting in and out of my car, and I want to believe it will always be that way. In fact, I have a hard time thinking otherwise, but this is exactly why I posted this thread. I always like to learn from people who have more life experience than me or have been through something that I haven’t.
As I am lying here typing this, I can look down and see the extensive bruising and the big bandage on my right knee from the revision of my prior total knee replacement. I had this surgery last Wednesday. Can't see it but I can certainly feel the pain which is not fun.
I have a Mercedes sedan in the garage along with my new Porsche Macan SUV -either can be driven for me to get me out of the house. Which one do you think I am riding in? Right, the Porsche SUV. It would be painful to lower myself into the Benz sedan and it is a snap to get in and out of the SUV. You may be doing fine now, but who knows what the future will bring.
Go ride in some different SUV's and don't get a subcompact one. You can't see out the rear windows so blind spot assistance is a must. I would not go smaller than what I have now.
If you are going to keep your car for a long time, see if you can upgrade from the Toyota/Honda-specific brands. Take a test ride in a Lexus/Acura/Audi/Volvo/Mercedes/BMW. Yes they cost more but you get what you pay for. I wanted to have one fun/sporty car now that I am in my late 60s so I chose a Porsche. And I can tell you, it is FUN!
NO!! There is currently NO self-driving car, no matter what your neighbor said. Teslas are not self-driving!
Two years ago my father-in-law was almost killed and his entire garage burned down when a man who had been drinking decided that it was OK to get behind the wheel of a Tesla since it "drives itself."
The last thing an older person should do is try to compensate for fading skills by getting a "car that drives itself." Maybe someday, but we are not anywhere near there yet.
I could never get in a self driving car. Heck, I had a problem with cruise control for a while because taking my foot off the gas made me feel like I wasn't 'in control' anymore. That was years ago and I love that feature on long road trips now. But I don't often trust a lot of drivers so I'm sure not going to trust a CAR without one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Subaru or Honda, or maybe a ‘Vette
