The other day I was reading a recent issue of Sunset magazine & there was a full page ad for the 2009 Honda CR-V (which the ad implied the reader will CRaVe).

They boasted about all the specs, including the fuel economy. Can you guess what the fuel economy is for a recent CR-V?

A good friend of mine drove a Honda Civic for about 10 years. It was a '95 m.y. I think. He only sold it because he inherited a BMW 3-series. Anyway, he consistently got 32/37 mpg in that car, and states these numbers as evidence against hybrids, but that's another story.

So, I figured the CR-V, which is basically a Civic gone clothes shopping at REI, should get somewhere in the neighborhood of 30mpg average, maybe 27/32 or something like that. Boy was I wrong.

The Honda ad bragged about the CR-V getting 20/27 mpg**
(** that's the 2WD version, mind you)

Sound familiar?

So I'm thinking, now wait just a second. Let's compare numbers:

2009 Honda CR-V:
MPG: 20/27
Power: 166 hp (124 kW)
Torque: 161 lb·ft (218 N·m)
Max Cargo space: 73 cu.ft
Luggage capacity: 35.7 cu.ft.
Seating: 5 Persons
MSRP/Invoice: $21,245/$19,778

2002 MBZ E320 wagon:
MPG: 20/27
Power: 221 hp (165 kW)
Torque: 232 lb·ft (315 N-m)
Max Cargo space: 83 cu.ft
Luggage capacity: 43.8 cu.ft.
Seating: 5+2 Persons
Edmunds base price: $10,600 (2002 w/ 70kmi)

Seems all that's lacking is the higher stance/view of the crossover chassis, and a warranty. Otherwise the 210 wagon (for roughly half the price) beats a new 2009 CR-V hands down, and that doesn't even factor in all the intangibles of driving a MBZ, like ride, handling, noise, comfort, fit/finish, safety, etc. Not to mention that the 210 has more legroom and head room (I'm 6'7" tall) than almost any other car I've tried other than a 740iL and an S-class, neither of which come as wagons. The leg/head room of the 210 was the main thing that initially got us looking at one.

I knew the 210 wagon had more power, had all the intangibles, and such, but I would have guessed that a CR-V would kill it on fuel economy and cargo space.

NOT!

EDIT:
Curb weight of Honda: 3389 lb
Curb weight of 210 wagon: 3856 lb

 

These cars are impressive all around. That's why consumer reports said it was "one of the best cars we've ever tested" when they reported on it back in 2000

 

I agree. I often see ads on TV for new cars that only get marginally better mileage than my 12 yr old wagon. And with 125K+ on the odometer it still gets the kind of gas mileage that was on the window sticker when new.

One note, though, there was some sort of adjustment in how MPG was calculated for new cars a while back but I don't know the details or how the old and new numbers compared.

 

LOVE MY WAGON!!!!!!

 

I would have never guessed!

 

Just goes to show that Jap cars cant compete with our German car, no matter how old!

 

You've got to compare apples to apples, not EPA ratings to numbers you've personally observed.

Also realize that the EPA ratings were adjusted downward for the 2008 model year.

EPA ratings for the 2002 E320 wagon using the revised formula are 17/25 for the RWD, 17/24 for the 4Matic:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

 

Wow, good thing I didn't give this topic the title "an excellent comparison" Using that site, a 2007 cr-v has 23/30 mpg with the "old" system. Compared to an e320 at 20/27.

I still say the e320 wins, by a wide margin.

 

Hmmm... I'm glad I clicked that link. I've been averaging 22-24 mpg on my 99 wagon and all this time I felt sick that I was giving up at least 10% efficiency because people on this forum swear they could squeeze out at least 27 mpg on their cars.

Thanks for the info.

 

I have got 35mpg in our 2002 E320. A Honda fit gets about 30-33 says my neighbor who owns one. I told her ya I get 35mpg and I have more room. A better ride and can blow the doors off of your car

 

Different people drive on different roads, at different speeds, and with variably heavy right feet.

This is why I ask about these factors in TrueDelta's real-world gas mileage survey.