How about Honda CRV?

CRV is not bad. Generally speaking, the internal and external workmanship of CRV is quite good, the body rigidity is acceptable, the suspension structure is good, and the adjustment effect is slightly comfortable. Mechanical performance: CRV engine technology is divided into two types, 2.0 adopts variable valve timing system, which can ensure low-speed economic fuel consumption performance. 2.4 The system of continuously variable valve timing and variable valve lift is adopted, which makes the engine output smoother under the condition of ensuring low speed and more economical fuel consumption, and because of the variable valve lift technology, 2.4 can be more explosive when driving at high speed. Honda's gearbox technology is also very good. Among the manual civil production vehicles, Honda and Volkswagen's manual gearboxes should be considered as one of the best, and CRV's 5-speed automatic gearbox is also very good. Although it is only 5-speed, it is the only parallel-axis automatic transmission in at because it is developed and produced by Honda. This gearbox with multi-plate automatic clutch can achieve the transmission efficiency that ordinary automatic transmission can not achieve. Maintenance is simpler. Similarly, the assembly cost is relatively low (the car price can be controlled in disguise). Originally, Honda's four-wheel drive system was very good, belonging to one of the four largest four-wheel drive systems in the world, but CRV used a silicone oil viscous coupling central differential with poor stability and transmission efficiency, instead of Honda Niu B's SH-AWD drive system. This is the only thing I think is CRV chicken ribs. Getting a garbage four-wheel drive system will increase the cost and weight. It would be perfect if we could produce a 2.4 predecessor. On the whole, CRV is quite good at this level and price. If the road surface is slippery or likes to drive hard, it is recommended to choose 2.4 distinguished type. If the usual form of pavement is not the kind that is easy to slip and drive moderately, you can choose the first-class 2.4 luxury type. What I like about CRV is that it is large in space, practical, inexpensive to maintain and economical in fuel consumption. As for the anti-collision steel beam, it is really moderate. Finally, I want to say that whether it is safe or not is often the driver's own active safety awareness. No matter how good the car is (except, of course, those cars with extremely luxurious machines and BT), no one will be involved in a head-on collision over 80M. One of the small shortcomings of CRV is that the materials used are not very good (most Japanese non-luxury brands are in China, mainly German brands, with thin plates, brittle paint and different wiring and welding grades), and then the original engine of 2.4L CRV is very good, that is, only four-wheel drive version. Compared with this chicken-ribbed four-wheel drive system, it increases the transmission shaft, differential and universal joint, which increases the unsprung weight in disguise. Car maintenance costs, because the insurance is basically fixed, the fuel consumption CRV is still relatively economical, and the maintenance of Japanese cars is relatively affordable. Generally speaking, if CRV travels 1.5W km a year, the annual fare is about 2W.