Stelcom66

It's a manual transmission which is my preference. It's in excellent shape. I didn't find a deficit in horsepower (126) with the B20 engine, seemed fine for me with the 5 speed. It ran/drove excellent, smooth and easy shifting unlike the manual transmission 2002 Toyota Camry I test drove with a slipping clutch. The only thing I didn't like as suspected was the low 5th gear. There wasn't a highway nearby, so the highest speed I could get up to was about 62 mph. At the speed the engine was at about 3200 rpm, and was loud. Does anyone here have a Gen 1 5 speed manual? I wonder if that's something you got used to. I know the engines are designed to run like that all day long. I'd like to convince myself I'd get used to it too as I really liked that CR-V. I had a 1998 Subaru Outback, also a manual, geared similarly. That seemed to run a bit quieter. For a 20 year old vehicle the CR-V seemed solid. I don't do a lot of highway driving. Also looking at other vehicles, but it's still on the list. I have a company van so older with high miles is Ok. On the top of the list with the CR-V would be an Accord with a manual transmission if I could find one in the price range I'm looking for.

ThisIsMatt

I put about 107k miles on a 2001 CR-V with a 5-speed and I can confirm that yes, they scream at highway speeds. At 80 mph you'll be spinning just over 4k RPM. At 70 mph I think I remember being around 3650 RPM. At only 3150 pounds for a 1st gen 5-speed, these things are not packed with sound deadening material, or anything else for that matter, but with AWD and decent tires they'll get you through just about anything you can find on the road making them excellent commuters. With my mostly highway commute I generally came in about 26.8-27.5 mpg in the warmer months and around 25.5 mpg in the colder months. Eventually I bought heavier alloy wheels with winter tires and dropped to about 23-24 mpg, but the traction I gained was easily worth the penalty. The Accord would be a nice vehicle, no doubt quieter and more comfortable, but the AWD and comparatively massive interior volume of the CR-V makes it a much more versatile car. Just my .02.

Stelcom66

Thanks for the input. If your commute was mostly highway i assume you got used to the high rpm. Interesting that most real world fuel economy reports like yours are better than the EPA estimates which for highway I think are 23 or 24 mpg. The best I ever saw with my Subaru Forester (mostly highway) was 27 mpg. The '98 CR-V drove so well on a the back roads and 50 mph speed limit road I was on that I can't take it out of consideration. It has 133k miles - certainly low for the year and no rust that I can see, unusual around here. I also have a 4WD truck. If I didn't have that hands down a CR-V would be it. There's just a certain appeal to me with those Gen 1s. Practical things like easy to get in and out of - and as you mentioned a decent amount of room. The Camry was the first car I drove in years, I got used to the height of vans, trucks.and SUVs. I would like to find an Accord with a manual transmission to test drive, even a late 90s model. They're very hard to find - and once they hit the market they're gone soon.

NAS_OCSICNARF

I have a 98. I have gotten used to it. I live in an area where there's lost of hills so I need that peak RPM to squeeze that power when im on 5th gear. This CRV (I call him Donkey) has been with me for 4 years now and I have only had to change the tires. I need to do the timing belt and water pump soon doe. I love it for the room it has and the comfortable ride.

ThisIsMatt

I did somewhat get used to the engine drone, but what really helped was an upgraded stereo! I replaced the head unit with a touch screen unit from Sony and built a custom 8" sub box that fit under the table in the rear hatch area. The amp for the sub lived under my driver's seat so no part of the system took up any usable room. It really was the right idea! Sounds like you found a real cherry of a '98. About 10 years ago I had a 1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport and comparatively that thing did pretty poorly with fuel economy. I think the best I ever got was 26 mpg once on the highway and most of the time I was around the 22 mpg range. Subaru put zero focus on fuel economy through the 90's and then kinda got caught with their pants down in the early '00's when other 4 cylinder engines were doing much better than their Boxers. They've made great progress in that regard since.

You can open up your Accord search by looking for Acura 2.2, 2.3, and 3.0CLs and 3.2TLs from the mid-to-late 90's. The CLs can be had in a manual and are very reliable vehicles. The TLs are auto-only, but are also long runners. Avoid TLs from 1999-2003, and it sounds like anything newer than 2003 isn't really what your heart it set on.

Stelcom66

Good to know you got used to it. I was surprised how good the ride was given the short wheelbase.

Yes a good stereo is key! I'd of course replace the single CD player with probably an SD/USB stick player. They're quite inexpensive due to no moving parts. Good idea re: Acura - didn't even think of those. The only reason I wasn't looking for 2003 + was cost due to a job change. But - it may be worth it with the Accords at least (maybe Acura too) due to the 2.4L engine that year which is chain driven. But - we know you can get plenty of miles from a belt driven engine with proper maintenance. Here I am over 60 years old considering vehicles high school kids would probably consider too old! It's reassuring to see there's 20 year old Hondas out there being driven routinely.