First Car: 1997 CRV vs. 2001 Impala LS

[Yanson]

A few weeks into looking to buy a car I think I'm finally bringing the search to a close. There are 2 cars that I believe it is coming down too, which both are pretty good and I wouldn't mind driving.

1997 Honda CRV
-$7000 Total
-1 YR Power train
-160 000 km
-4 cyl, 2.2 L
-Standard Features
-Roomier, could do more
sporty, summer stuff

2001 Chevrolet Impala LS
-$6000 Total
-AS IS
-180 000 km
-6 cyl, 3.8L
-Fully Loaded, much nicer interior
-Much cooler looking

Now what brought me to the 2 cars was safety, space (compacts turned out to be too small for my size), mileage , insurance and price. For the first 4 the CRV is good, however the Impala has slightly better insurance quotes. The Impala is very nice and powerful and very good insurance rates but the mileage is high, not great on gas, no warranty and the resale value isn't as great, CRV prices in the trader as still high all these years and I'll change cars in 3+ years.

The decision can lean anyway right now and if anyone has any input it would be greatly appreciated!

[hightech]

I don't have the Consumer Reports for the 97 CRV, but the 98 CRV is ranked EXCELLENT. The 2001 Impala, by contract, has piss poor reliability on all counts.

CRV:


Impala:


Its a no brainer: The CRV is more reliable, fuel efficient, and has better storage then the Impala.

I rented a 2003 Impala on a week long vacation and hated the handling, turning radius, fuel consumption, and seating position. Only good thing about it: I can drive fast and people think I am driving a Police Cruiser

There is a reason why the police force left the Impala and went with the Ford Crown Vic. The Ford has far superior reliability then the Impala ever did.

[Alvito]

arent these two cars in totally different class? wouldnt the impala be considered a more family oriented car? and the CRV a single persons car?

depends on your life style.

[AudiDude]

IMHO the CRV is gutless and has a small cramped interior. The inside may look big, but wait until you have to put stuff in it. Imagine a family friend with her 2 kids shopping. One in the front, one in the back beside some groceries and the stroller in the back (for youngest child) with some groceries jammed around it. It didn't take long for her to discover the CRV isn't is practical as it looks. It is somewhat a toy. The AWD is a bit of a joke as the front wheels usually spin a bit before the back even think of joining in.

OTOH, the Impala is cheaper on insurace because it is an old-folks car, but I really believe I can put more items in the car than the CRV. It also has that "generic motors" feeling like you've driven the same car all your life (good or bad, you decide). Don't discount the lasting ability of the 3.8 V6, it'll hang in there. This car should be easier to fix (thanks to GM's part bin engineering) at most mechanics. Larger interior (you said you find subcompacts too small, I don't see the CRV being for you).

What warranty do you have with the Honda, Lubrico??If so, you could get that for the Impala. Don't buy a vehicle for what you "could" do with it. Buy it for what you need it to do for you which could be anything ranging from get you from point A to B or perhaps if you drive far, more relaxing due to it's size. I personally wouldn't drive an uncomfortable car just to save money 3 years later, for me it isn't worth it. If I fit nice and it is easy to drive, I can relax. If the car is uncomfortable, it'd better have 500HP or something to take my mind off the uncomfortable $hit ride...

As an aside, I would never buy either of these, so you know there is no fanboyism here.

[FD3S]

I don' think you can call the CRV a single persons car at all..

It is more of a Family CUV/SUV....

I would Opt for the CRV...

As stated above, it scores much better in every cat. verus the impala...


Price difference?

[hotgo]

4 year newer car, cheaper to purchase, cheaper to insure, cheaper to repair. Easy answer... the Impala.

[l69norm]

One thing to check closely in the Honda is rust in the wheel wells. A "crappy" Impala might be a better overall car than a rusty "nice" Honda

[IoannI]

I'd go with the Impala. Personally, I'm a fan of GM W-Body vehicles. The CRV is pretty nice, but I'd go with the Impala.

Cheap on insurance. 4 years newer. Of course 20kkm more, but its also fully loaded and spacious.

[Dragons4Life]

Honda CR-V hands down

1. 2.2 4 cylinders VS 6 cylinders 3.8L ( this right here would save you money on gas)
2. Honda Engine will last you way longer than the impala, its proven well maintained Honda can get to 300k+ Kms no problems at all.
3. You can much more, and its more fun to drive.

[Yanson]

From what I've gathered from what information I've received that the Honda would be a good choice if it is in good condition and the impala I would have to be very careful it was in good working condition. That is one of the pluses of the Honda, I know that it will be covered against major stuff for 1 year so at least I'll get that much out of it. I've heard the 3.8 impala though is a good engine and its actually more reliable than the base 3.4, and its easy to fix if something goes south. decisions decisions...

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

Watch out for the EGR burning a hole in the intake manifold on the 3800. It's a known problem, you could even ask to see if the manifold has been replaced with an updated one.

[mr_raider]

The 3800 series II is an excellent engine (consumer reposrts be damned!), However, beware of all the lectric doodads in GM cars. They can malfunction.

[hightech]

The 3800 series II is an excellent engine

This is one area that I have to agree with. The 3800 series of engines is very reliable and parts are easy to fix.

My main take on a car is that it should be serving me more then it being in the shop getting something fixed. Sure, it may be cheap to fix, but it is a pain in the a$$ to have to fix it every time. Given the sketchy repair history, 1 big repair job will pretty much wash away any savings you may have. Guess it all comes down to pay now, or pay (perhaps a lot more) later.

I am not a fan of either of these cars either (hated driving the Impala as a rental, god help me to ever buy it). The CRV is also underpowered. I'd rather go with a V6 Toyota RAV4, or even a Subaru Forrester. Not sure about your budget or pricing, but the Forrester should be reasonably priced, better in winter, and also quite reliable as well (model years 2004 onwards)

[IoannI]

I've heard the 3.8 impala though is a good engine and its actually more reliable than the base 3.4, and its easy to fix if something goes south. decisions decisions...

I've driven the 3.1, 3.4 and the 3.8 and they are all beautiful engines. You setp on the lightly, for instantneous acceleration, and woo it roars from the inside.

[mau108]

I owned a 1st gen crv and it was a very reliable SUV (honda calls it that, I just call it a jacked up civic with awd and more room :P)

I had a 2000 which had a few more ponys under the hood then the 97-98, you also may find the road noise a bit annoying compared to the impala. But if you want reliable, cheap to drive and versatile the crv is the one.

It also had very good leg room for the back seat, heck I think it has better leg room then my rdx

Miss her some jackasses stole it off my drive way. If you decide to go for the crv just listen to the valves or get a mechanic to listen and see if they need adjustments, that was the only problem on the CRV, valves may make noise early on, a simple valve adjustment is all that is needed. I actually didnt need one till 120k.

http://www.hondasuv.com are where the crv fanatics live There used to be awesome offroading videos of the CRV outdoing offroading machines (nissan xterra is one I remember)