Can a 4WD Honda CRV be converted to a 2WD?

worded

A person I know bought a 4WD and it is drinking fuel

She has no need fro a 4WD

Can it easily be converted to a 2WD and is it expensive.

Is a 2007 and worth 1500 euro approx ...

wotzgoingon

Take out the long drive shaft going back the vehicle.

Easily done also few bolts with basic tools is all that's needed. A garage would have it done in a few mins with a lift.

Atlantic Dawn

Not worth doing, savings would never in the life of the car cover the job to do it, sell and get something else.

worded

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Take out the long drive shaft going back the vehicle.

OK so its possible to do ....

Expensive?

worded

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Not worth doing, savings would never in the life of the car cover the job to do it, sell and get something else.

Ok thanks

worded

Out of interest ... how much more fuel does a 4wd use?

wotzgoingon

worded wrote: »

OK so its possible to do ....

Expensive?

No not expensive at all I edited that post above after you quoted it.

CharlieCroker

Afaik, they're not full time 4wd so I'd imagine there'll be zero fuel saving

worded

CharlieCroker wrote: »

Afaik, they're not full time 4wd so I'd imagine there'll be zero fuel saving

So its possible to on/off the 4wd?

CharlieCroker

worded wrote: »

So its possible to on/off the 4wd?

There's no switch. It's front wheel drive 99% of the time and when the traction control kicks in, it diverts power to the rear wheels to aid traction. So disconnecting the rear driveshaft shouldn't make much difference to day to day economy.

worded

Just googled and found this ...

Pre-2012 Models
If you own a CR-V build before 2013, the all-wheel-drive system is fully hydraulic. The system has two hydraulic pumps -- one driven by the front wheels and one driven by the rear differential. Under normal conditions, the pumps work at the same speed. If you lose traction at the front wheels, the pressure difference between the two pumps activates a multi-disc clutch that splits the torque between the front and rear wheels. Once you regain traction, the hydraulic pressure between the two pumps equalizes and all torque is returned to the front wheels.

worded

Anyone know how many MPG a Honda Petrol CRV does compared to a Honda 1.9 Petrol Accord ?

Thanks

Atlantic Dawn

worded wrote: »

Anyone know how many MPG a Honda Petrol CRV does compared to a Honda 1.9 Petrol Accord ?

Thanks

2 litre they both are from that era and share the same engine, you would be talking circa early 30mpg's in the Accord, probably early to mid 20's in the CRV, driving them on a motorway will narrow the gap.

boombang

worded wrote: »

Anyone know how many MPG a Honda Petrol CRV does compared to a Honda 1.9 Petrol Accord ?

Thanks

http://www.fuelly.com/

Up to you to choose the right models. Remember, US gallons are different.

colm_mcm

The 4wd on a CRV doesb’t really impact consumption. It’s only 4wd on demand.

Cee-Jay-Cee

worded wrote: »

Anyone know how many MPG a Honda Petrol CRV does compared to a Honda 1.9 Petrol Accord ?

Thanks

The accord is 2.0 and would be a lot more economical than the CRV. the Accord should manage 40mpg on long runs and low 30’s on shorter runs. The CRV is heavy and probably low 30’s on a long run and low 20’s on shorter runs.

Del2005

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

The accord is 2.0 and would be a lot more economical than the CRV. the Accord should manage 40mpg on long runs and low 30’s on shorter runs. The CRV is heavy and probably low 30’s on a long run and low 20’s on shorter runs.

I'd a 2l Accord auto and I rarely got more than 30mpg.

colm_mcm

I’d say the fugures there are for manual. I’d say they’re a bit optimistic too.

DaveyDave

If she wanted better fuel consumption a 4WD SUV wasn't the smartest choice, especially if she doesn't need the 4WD part.

A bit of homework would have saved the hassle.

colm_mcm

It being a 2.0 petrol with the aerodynamics of a van won’t help either.

Cee-Jay-Cee

colm_mcm wrote: »

I’d say the fugures there are for manual. I’d say they’re a bit optimistic too.

No...I’ve owned both so the figures are what I Was getting from them. The accord would do mid 40’s if you kept it around 100kmh on long runs.

CiniO

By removing the shaft, you'd save on resistance of shaft itself + powering that pressure pump in rear diff. In theory it could make difference in fuel consumption, but in practice I don't believe it would be even noticable.

I have two of those (2 generation) one manual and one automatic.

Manual does about 8 to 10 l/100km on open road, and about 11-12 l/100km in city traffic.
Automatic is about 9-11 l/100km on open road and 12-13 l/100km in city traffic.

Now my automatic is converted to LPG, and it's about 10-12 l/100km on open road, and 13-14 l/100km in city traffic.

zilog_jones

boombang wrote: »

http://www.fuelly.com/

Up to you to choose the right models. Remember, US gallons are different.

Spritmonitor is better for finding models/configurations sold in Europe:

https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/18-Honda/174-CR-V.html?fueltype=2&constyear_s=2007&constyear_e=2011&power_s=145&power_e=155&gearing=1&powerunit=2

The 2.0 engine (150 PS) wasn't sold in the US, so results on Fuelly (mostly yanks) isn't that useful.

9.26 l/100km average between 35 users, just under 31 MPG. Not far off CiniO's experience.