|
As an avid fisher, outdoor enthusiast, and soon-to-be dad, I appreciate a vehicle that offers enough ground clearance to get me safely to the river; can swallow gear, coolers, float tubes, and, yep, strollers; yet still easily accommodates up to five passengers. Perhaps more important, I don't want something that is burdensome to maneuver through a parking lot or barely fits in my garage. The compact crossover, as it were, fits the bill. But it can't be a soft; it has to be fun to drive and deliver some modicum of sportiness -- as a driving enthusiast, I appreciate a nice handling vehicle. Last summer, I took our long-term 2007 Honda CR-V on a fishing trip to Mammoth Lakes, and came away impressed and satisfied -- well, mostly impressed and almost satisfied. If only it had had more power, a transmission with manual-shift control, a firmer suspension, and a more aggressive façade. Which got me thinking… why doesn't it?
If you're reading this, then the idea of a sporty CR-V piqued your interest, too -- at least enough to click and see if my brainchild of a hot-rod Honda sport/ute was for real. Well, as of now it's not. But should Honda's product planners read this incredibly invaluable information (my finder's fee is simply a 2010 CR-V SC, or a nice T-shirt) and realize that a sporty CR-V is indeed a grand idea, then the SC is not so improbable. So what exactly is a CR-V SC and why should Honda build one?
 Let's first address the latter question -- why should Honda even bother? Well, it's simple. All its major competitors offer a sportier, more powerful crossover than the 166-horse CR-V. Toyota has the RAV4 Sport, available with a 269-horse V-6 (even the base 2.5-liter RAV4 makes 175 hp). Subaru builds the 224-horsepower turbocharged Forester XT. Mazda? Its CX-7 offers a 244-horsepower direct-injected turbo option. And let's not forget about small-volume Mitsubishi, whose Outlander comes with an available 220-hp V-6 and steering wheel-mounted paddle shifters. Even Chevy's upcoming 2010 Equinox will boast at least 185 horsepower, with the option to step up to 264. Further, most of the aforementioned competitors offer dedicated sport versions, replete with stiffer dampers and springs, and larger wheel/tire packages. The CR-V? Nada. It comes only with the 2.4-liter 166-hp I-4, a comfortable but not terribly responsive suspension, and ho-hum 17-inch wheels.
 Unless, that is, Honda takes the SC route. It's done it before -- just check out the Element SC, a lowered, hipper take on Honda's utility box. Producing the CR-V SC wouldn't be too difficult, really, given that most of what's needed already exists in Honda's (or Acura's) portfolio.
Let's start with the engine. In order to simplify and cut costs, Honda could use the Acura TSX's 2.4-liter 201-hp I-4 -- an engine that is exactly the same size as the CR-V's 166-hp mill -- thus avoiding any retooling or development dollars associated with trying to shoehorn a V-6 into the engine bay. While not a horsepower hog, the TSX's engine nonetheless boasts 35 additional ponies; plus, it'll rev all day (and smoothly and euphoniously, too) to 7000 rpm, not to mention return better fuel economy than a V-6 (always a welcome and green benefit).
Next: transmission. Any sport model worthy of its name needs a tranny with manual shift control. For now, the CR-V comes with a five-speed auto offering only Drive, Overdrive Off, 2, and 1 -- no manual shift whatsoever. Then where to? Back to the TSX, naturally, whose five-speed auto offers a manual mode (not to mention a Sport mode) as well as paddle shifters. Keeping those 201 horses in VTEC mode would be as easy as it would be enjoyable. For purists, Honda could even offer the TSX's six-speed manual, one of the silkiest gearboxes around.
For the suspension, Honda could use the firmer springs and dampers from the similarly sized Element SC, which could also lend its larger anti-roll bars and 18-inch wheels with lower-profile 225/55 tires. Brakes and steering? The CR-V's four-wheel disc setup, already the same size as that on the Acura RDX, could be left status quo, while its 15.7:1 steering could be swapped for the RDX's slightly quicker 15.1:1 rack.
All that's left are tasteful exterior and interior upgrades. For the outside, replace any chrome bits with those in black, including a sporty, mesh grille. And, if desired, offer a subtle body kit with rocker extensions and small front and rear spoilers. Inside, fit the SC with a leather-wrapped steering wheel with contrast stitching, faux carbon-fiber trim on the doors and dash, and sports seats covered in cloth and synthetic suede, a la the Civic Si. And there you have it -- the 2010 CR-V SC. More powerful, more fun to drive, and more exciting to look at. And more money, too, right?
Not necessarily. The 2009 CR-V ranges in price from about $22,000 for a base, front-drive LX to over $29,000 for a loaded four-wheel-drive EX with leather and navigation. Taking into account the SC's added performance hardware -- as well as its lack of costly leather -- I don't see why a front-driver couldn't sticker for around $28,000, or the price of a four-wheel-drive EX with leather. Checking the box for four-wheel drive would add another $1200 or so.
According to Honda, CR-V buyers are split 40/60 male/female. Not surprising, given the target customer was the "cool mom." Build the SC, Honda, and you may just even out that mix, attracting more "cool dads."
|