This car had LESS power last year?! I didn't initially believe Evan's last sentence, but indeed, last year's CR-V was even slower, to the tune of 14 fewer horsepower (166 hp vs. the 2010 model's 180 hp). This is the first CR-V I've driven, and I was surprised with its lackadaisical attitude toward acceleration and the five-speed automatic's hesitation to downshift, particularly given the fact that Honda offers only a single engine -- this 2.4-liter in-line four -- in this vehicle.
I also think that $30,500 is on the pricey side for a vehicle in this class, but this particular all-wheel-drive EX-L edition was nicely loaded with heated leather seats, nav, a sunroof, and XM satellite radio. There's also tons of room in the back seats, which are highly adjustable (they move fore/aft and also recline). The cargo area isn't gigantic with the rear seats in place, but it's ample. The CR-V strikes me as a particularly good choice if you frequently haul people in the back seats, but not so much if you often haul both a lot of gear and people.
A CD changer in the center console ... hmm, are we sure this isn't a 2001 model instead of a 2010 vehicle?
If the CR-V didn't have Honda's impeccable reputation on its side, I'd say it'd be easily outgunned by its many rivals in this class, particularly when you consider the CR-V's best fuel-economy rating of 21/28 mpg city/highway (versus, for instance, the new Chevy Equinox's 22/32-mpg top rating).
Rusty Blackwell, Copy Editor