No! Or yes, I don’t care, it’s your money, and you ain’t asked me to pay for it, so knock yourself out. If I thought with logic, I probably wouldn’t have purchased nearly 50 cars over the years, of varying conditions with nearly no real significant value to anyone who isn’t that strange combination of weird and boring. Anyways, as controversial as crossovers can be with some enthusiasts, the extra ground clearance and available AWD are really handy for pile-driving through snow drifts and just being above all the road slush nonsense. [Ed Note: Provided you have the right tires, obviously. Don’t be this guy.-PG] So much so, that basically, the entire Autopian crew is seemingly perusing the online classifieds in search of first-generation Honda CR-Vs and Toyota RAV4s. Now, as a guy who has owned (and lost money on) a 2001 Honda CR-V EX, and driven plenty of RAV4s, they’re both fine little crossovers. But, if you’re looking for a real go-to AWD system, one reigns superior—and it’s not the Honda.
Photo: Toyota See, maybe I am biased; for some reason over my nearly 50-car tenure, I have had the weirdest bad luck with Honda products. I’ve owned three Civics, one of which I’ve lost money on, and currently I’m pretending that I didn’t buy a 2011 Honda CR-Z last year that I haven’t figured out how to start. My 2001 Honda CR-V was a crapwagon, likely of my own doing. A less-seasoned 21-year-old me purchased one with a busted transmission and spent three months replacing it myself, only to realize I had aligned everything wrong, leaving me with a terrible, terrible driveline vibration that caused me to pull the propeller shaft, cut my losses, and sell it as a FWD CR-V. Still, my inexperienced, incompetent fucking-over-of what was at one point a nice crossover, my opinion still stands. The Honda CR-V is merely okay. Now, we love its available manual transmission (mine was an automatic, but I owned it at the same time a friend of mine had a Manual AWD car), smooth B-series DOHC engine, and Pixar-car-esque huge glass area and great sightlines, but the AWD system is kind of, uh, maybe mid. The CR-V uses Honda’s “Real-Time 4WD” setup, which is a clutch-based viscous setup that clutches in the rear axle when the front wheels are slipping too much. In normal use, it’s generally fine for many normal drivers, allowing you to just power out and get unstuck in snow or mud that would probably trip up any sedan. But, if you ask it to do more than that, you’ll probably be disappointed.
Photo: Honda For starters, the RT4WD, especially on the early generation vehicles, employs a viscous coupling that can’t be locked manually; it relies on the dual pump fluid getting hot enough to engage the clutch to make the rear wheels spin. Meaning, the front wheels need to spin at least a little for the rear axle to come on. Not ideal for slow-going obstacles where you’ll need AWD to be engaged from the start. It can be annoying when it cuts in too, as you’ll start out with wheelspin, only for the rear wheels to suddenly gain power and traction after a moment of spinning. Fun, but not always usable. Second, the dual pump fluid that controls the coupling can overheat during use. To prevent damage, the rear axle will uncouple to let the fluid cool back down, meaning, you’ve just got the front wheels doing all the work. Basically, the rear wheels are designed to get you unstuck, then quietly turn off when you’ve regained traction. I mean, for most folks, the CR-V’s limits are well within the bounds of what people expect from a compact crossover. Honda has sold millions of the damn things, and the RTAWD system is a popular swap for Honda fans seeking to mitigate traction issues in high-powered Honda projects. But, there’s an alternative that was way, way better off-road: the original Toyota RAV4. Toyota, in its all-seeing wiseness, ported the same rally car AWD system found on its Celica All-Trac coupe. Maybe the rear differential is smaller, but given the RAV4’s measly 120 horsepower, it doesn’t matter, right? The early RAV4 came with a full-time AWD setup, even available with a rear LSD on some models. The center differential can be locked in 50-50 mode, although on some automatic transmission models Toyota cut that feature, meaning the AWD system will always operate in auto mode. Either way, it’s a more capable system than what the CR-V got. Personally, I’m partial to the RAV4. It’s not as roomy, and that 2.0-liter four-cylinder is a fuel-swilling dog, especially with the automatic transmission, but it’s a dog that will go a surprising number of places. It’s tiny inside compared to the CR-V, but arguably the RAV4 is better at emulating an SUV than the CR-V ever was. The RAV4, Suzuki Sidekick, and Ford Escape are a crop of early SUVs/crossovers that had a surprising amount of capability for a car-based crossover. If you’re in search of a good off-roader, get the RAV4, not the CR-V. Anyway, I’ve probably said too much. Let me get to perusing the classifieds for a 5-speed AWD RAV4 before they all disintegrate and return to the earth.
Let’s Talk About The 4×4 EarthCruiser CORE Dual-Cab Chassis Because Why The Hell Not
The Legendary 4×4 ‘Scout’ Brand Could Be Back As A Volkswagen Built By iPhone-Maker Foxconn
Here Are The Four Cars I’ve Decided To Bring With Me To My New Los Angeles Apartment
It’s Time To Stop Sharing That Meme With All The White SUVs Because It’s Wrong And Stupid
i upgraded to the 2004. pretty happy with that one too. Absolutely horrific in the snow. Could not climb the hill that was regularly trod by by 2 wheel drive vans in any sort of weather. No pitty over here from that CR-Z though… Also, I love the first-gen Rav4. It looks cool whether as a 4-door hardtop, 2-door hardtop, or a 2-door convertible. It came with the 3S-FE, so a 3S-GTE swap should be easy 😀 And the first-gens of these small crossovers is all awesome. Good size, good reliability, big windows, decent mpg (except Subaru LOL). The first-gen Rav4, CR-V, Forester, and X-Trail are all cool, even if the Forester leaves a bit to be desired in terms of reliability. NOTHING beats a 90s Toyota!!! Sadly, only the Forester keeps the virtues of the older small crossovers (it still has real windows and even the giant sunroof), though it has gotten much better for reliability and mpg, even if it can’t quite match Honda and Toyota). So it’s neither viscous nor does it work by fluid heating. It’s a geroter loop where pressure is built up with speed difference. The pressure is routed to a clutch pack to increase clamping load. The clutch is the friction added. With a Viscous system the viscous coupler is the friction adder. You got the bulk of it correct where it’s a dual pump system, but the pumps build pressure not heat. I mean, they build heat like anything does, but they work on pressure. The first gen Rav-4 is marvel because they actually tried to make a truly capable car that carried family DNA, but as most things go they continued to style the rav-4 to look like a smaller Prado, but realized there was no point in making it as capable as one any more. But, to be honest, I want to read more about the CR-Z! Please provide an update when you have one. Worst vehicle decision of my life (and I have owned a lot of vehicles). The AWD was terrible in the snow. Driving on the highway in slow traffic during a snowstorm and it constantly felt like I was going to get stuck. The car seat didn’t fit in the back without the seat all the way forward. Finally, 5 months in to ownership, the Car Gods told me something when a ball joint broke at 45mph, pulled me across 4 lanes of traffic and into the ditch on the other side. Miraculously, nothing was harmed except the CR-V. Towed it to the Mazda dealer, took whatever they offered on trade and drove away in a Mazda 3. The crazy part- I test drove a RAV the same day I bought the CR-V and chose the CR-V for the sight lines and comfort. Worst decision ever.
