How about Honda CRV?

CRV is not bad. Generally speaking, the CRV's internal and external workmanship is quite good, the body rigidity is passable, the suspension structure is very good, and the adjustment effect is slightly comfortable. Mechanical performance: CRV engine technology is divided into two types. The 2.0 uses a variable valve timing system, which can ensure very economical fuel consumption performance at low speeds. The 2.4 uses a continuously variable valve timing and variable valve lift system, which not only ensures more economical fuel consumption at low speeds, but also makes the engine output smoother. Moreover, due to the variable valve lift technology, the 2.4 It's more explosive when driving at high speeds. Honda's transmission technology is also very impressive. Among manual mass-produced cars, Honda and Volkswagen's manual transmissions should be considered among the best. CRV's 5-speed automatic transmission is also very good. Don't look at it as it is only a 5-speed, but because of the It is developed and produced by Honda's own technology, so it is the only parallel-axis automatic transmission in AT. This type of transmission, coupled with a multi-plate automatic clutch, can achieve transmission efficiency that ordinary automatic transmissions cannot achieve. And care and maintenance are simpler. The assembly cost is also relatively low (which can control the car price in disguise). Originally, Honda's four-wheel drive system is very good, and it is one of the four major four-wheel drive systems in the world. However, the CRV does not use Honda Niu B's SH-AWD drive system, but uses a model with poor stability. The silicone oil viscous coupling center differential also has poor transmission efficiency. This is the only thing I think is useless about CRV. Getting a rubbish four-wheel drive system increases the cost and weight. It would be perfect if there was a 2.4 front-wheel drive. Generally speaking, CRV is still very good at this level and price. If the road you usually drive on is slippery or you like to drive vigorously, it is recommended to choose the 2.4 premium model. If the road surface is not the kind of road that is easy to slip. , if the driving is relatively gentle, you can choose the first-grade 2.4 luxury model. What I like about CRV is that it has a large space, is practical, is not expensive to maintain, and has economical fuel consumption. As for anti-collision steel beams, it is indeed better than none. Okay, now the original price before and after installation is estimated to be 500~600. The last thing I want to say is whether it is safe or not, it is often the driver's own active safety awareness. No matter how good a car is (except for those extremely luxurious and BT-powered cars, of course) no one can exceed 80M in a frontal collision. What I feel is slightly lacking about CRV is that the materials used are not very good (most Japanese non-luxury brands are like this in China, mainly because the panels are thin, the paint is brittle, and the wiring and welding are not as good as German brands of the same level). Then there is the 2.4L CRV. The original engine is very good, but it only has a four-wheel drive version. Compared with this useless four-wheel drive system, drive shafts, differentials, universal joints, etc. are added to increase the unsprung mass in disguise. The cost of maintaining a car is basically fixed because of insurance, CRV fuel consumption is quite economical, and maintenance, Japanese car maintenance is relatively affordable. In general, if a CRV travels 1.5W kilometers a year, the annual vehicle cost is about 2W.