I have had the 2009 Mk3 top spec, with i DETEC engine , full leather, and all the toys, for the last 5yrs, and I cant fault it, apart from the wind noise over 50mph. I think the most important thing for me, that you missed, was the fact that mine does not have DPF's, ( I don't know about yours ) which is why I went for it, as I am rural, and don't get the chance to open her up very often. The only thing that I would like on mine is the speed limiter, as the 20MPH law in my native South Wales is doing my nut in, and I assume that would fix the problem of continually having to scan the speedo to try not to break the limit. I hate it when joggers overtake me. Thanks for sharing the video.
Yours won’t be the I-DTEC (N22B) on 09, it will be the I-ctdi (N22A) non DPF, the dtec was only available from 2010 to 2012 on the MK3 I found the wind noise in mine was the roof bars. Thanks for watching 👍🏼
I hv used mk3 and have mk4 currently, and as u rightly mentioned, the mk3 wins hands down... The quality, fit n finish and of course the design, mk3 was way better, for e.g. the grab handles, the steering buttons, loads of space around front seats, higher recline angle of back seats, two compartments in the boot, and lastly the airy space on the right side of driver seat, i miss them in my current mk4... Though one good thing mk4 has, is the dashboard console analog clock. 😊
Both good cars , if I had to pick regardless of cost I’d have the Mk4, spending my own money I think the value choice is the Mk3 but it would need to be the late 2010 -2012 with the IDTech engine
Yeah for such a huge difference in price, there is no where near enough improvement in the MK4 to justify over the MK3. I personally wouldn’t buy a MK4 for the price they go for, hate to say it better cars out there
Mk4 1.6 is £35 to tax compared to £305. It also does 60mpg as opposed to 42 and is cheaper to insure. Both have dpfs which I hate. Mk4 got a proper handbrake at last
Love how smooth and reliable the K20 are, just wish they had a bit more punch, and get rather thirsty if pushed. Wish they had turbo charged the K20 would have been fantastic
I have the top of the range mk 3 in black. I can't connect the Bluetooth.. Maybe it's too old. Tail gate doesn't lift high enough. Nearly knocked my self out on the tailgate a few times. Does not help that I wear a cap and can't see the tailgate but at least it protects me head a bit. Sat nav has a disk, over time the disk needs replacement as it scratches while spinning.. It's still a good car but the sat nav /Bluetooth is showing it's age now. Can upgrade this ofc but I use my phone instead..(now I've a obsolete nav unit) So I would suggest not buying the car with sat nav being the reason. Lower spec version makes more sense unless you are gong to change the nav to Google maps version that is so much better.
I think the MK3 has a better roof line and a better rear end, I don't like the back end on the MK4 or the way the roof appears to slope down towards the back.
The petrol ones are smooth/refined/reliable, but have nowhere near as much pull/torque as the diesels, plus they are rather thirsty, had a few petrol CRV and had to get rid because of the fuel economy.
Used to have a MK4, superb car. Had a Mk1 and 2 as well, great cars the CRVs. Bought a Land Rover Discovery Sport, an absolute money pit waste of time, now looking for a new CRV.
Oh my days, what on earth made you buy a JLR product from a Honda, please you have learnt from my mistake at least. I actually run a garage and refuse to work on the majority of JLR vehicles Thanks for watching 👍🏼
@peenergysolutionslimited8903 It’s covered so vastly in the media, forums to general chat between people, always amazes me how many people still go out that buy them.
A very interesting and informative video. I would personally prefer the 2.2 with a remap, as I tow a Caravan. All of this eco warrior nonsense, really gets my back up and many very good engines have been destroyed and replaced with rubbish drive trains, to try and comply.
Yes I absolutely agree with you, main thing that’s happening is they are reducing the CC and number of cylinders to crazy small an amounts, then just bolting a big turbo on…. Yes they have the power on paper, but not built to last at all. 9/10 get rubbish MPG and have loads of issues as they are highly stressed
I have had the 2009 Mk3 top spec, with i DETEC engine , full leather, and all the toys, for the last 5yrs, and I cant fault it, apart from the wind noise over 50mph. I think the most important thing for me, that you missed, was the fact that mine does not have DPF's, ( I don't know about yours ) which is why I went for it, as I am rural, and don't get the chance to open her up very often. The only thing that I would like on mine is the speed limiter, as the 20MPH law in my native South Wales is doing my nut in, and I assume that would fix the problem of continually having to scan the speedo to try not to break the limit. I hate it when joggers overtake me. Thanks for sharing the video.
Yours won’t be the I-DTEC (N22B) on 09, it will be the I-ctdi (N22A) non DPF, the dtec was only available from 2010 to 2012 on the MK3
I found the wind noise in mine was the roof bars.
Thanks for watching 👍🏼
I hv used mk3 and have mk4 currently, and as u rightly mentioned, the mk3 wins hands down... The quality, fit n finish and of course the design, mk3 was way better, for e.g. the grab handles, the steering buttons, loads of space around front seats, higher recline angle of back seats, two compartments in the boot, and lastly the airy space on the right side of driver seat, i miss them in my current mk4... Though one good thing mk4 has, is the dashboard console analog clock. 😊
Great video👏 Have been. offered a Mark 3 ..so will buy it! Thank you
Yes the MK3 are a cracking car for how cheap you can pick them up for
Both good cars , if I had to pick regardless of cost I’d have the Mk4, spending my own money I think the value choice is the Mk3 but it would need to be the late 2010 -2012 with the IDTech engine
Yeah for such a huge difference in price, there is no where near enough improvement in the MK4 to justify over the MK3.
I personally wouldn’t buy a MK4 for the price they go for, hate to say it better cars out there
Mk4 1.6 is £35 to tax compared to £305. It also does 60mpg as opposed to 42 and is cheaper to insure.
Both have dpfs which I hate.
Mk4 got a proper handbrake at last
What happened to the split parcel shelf in the boot on the Mk3? That is the item that is missing from the Mk4.
I think it was missing on this car, or possibly an option.
Never used to like them always prefered the kuga but now your mk3 has me wanting 1 of them instead.
I really liked these when new in 2006 and still do to this day.
Can’t say that for many if any cars
I have the Mk3, petrol automatic version. Îs a very good and practical car.
Love how smooth and reliable the K20 are, just wish they had a bit more punch, and get rather thirsty if pushed.
Wish they had turbo charged the K20 would have been fantastic
I have the top of the range mk 3 in black. I can't connect the Bluetooth.. Maybe it's too old. Tail gate doesn't lift high enough. Nearly knocked my self out on the tailgate a few times. Does not help that I wear a cap and can't see the tailgate but at least it protects me head a bit.
Sat nav has a disk, over time the disk needs replacement as it scratches while spinning..
It's still a good car but the sat nav /Bluetooth is showing it's age now.
Can upgrade this ofc but I use my phone instead..(now I've a obsolete nav unit)
So I would suggest not buying the car with sat nav being the reason. Lower spec version makes more sense unless you are gong to change the nav to Google maps version that is so much better.
I agree the sat nav / Bluetooth is rather dated, tbh I have owned new cars and I still use my phone for sat nav.
Thanks for watching 👍🏼
I think the MK3 has a better roof line and a better rear end, I don't like the back end on the MK4 or the way the roof appears to slope down towards the back.
I just think it’s been dulled to so much it’s boring, and remember there is a HUGE price difference, I simply couldn’t justify it
@@CarAddictGarageNE yeah it's almost like they've styled it ugly on purpose, just like a lot of modern vehicles.
Yes I just don’t understand, like they are scared to be bold and different.
Like just about every new car looks the same
I’ve been looking at some on a 2016 plate with around 70k miles. I’m having a 2 litre petrol thow
The petrol ones are smooth/refined/reliable, but have nowhere near as much pull/torque as the diesels, plus they are rather thirsty, had a few petrol CRV and had to get rid because of the fuel economy.
just put a deposit on a 17 plate EX 1.6, I must say, I agree that the earlier variant is a much better looking car, and very practical
Much more refined car the MK4/5 I will say to give credit for that.
Mk4 2.0 petrol manual - beautiful
Nice and smooth , uber reliable and easy to work on…. But man they are thirty and gutless in comparison to the diesel variants
Used to have a MK4, superb car. Had a Mk1 and 2 as well, great cars the CRVs. Bought a Land Rover Discovery Sport, an absolute money pit waste of time, now looking for a new CRV.
Oh my days, what on earth made you buy a JLR product from a Honda, please you have learnt from my mistake at least.
I actually run a garage and refuse to work on the majority of JLR vehicles
Thanks for watching 👍🏼
@@CarAddictGarageNE Lesson well and truly learned!
@peenergysolutionslimited8903
It’s covered so vastly in the media, forums to general chat between people, always amazes me how many people still go out that buy them.
A very interesting and informative video. I would personally prefer the 2.2 with a remap, as I tow a Caravan. All of this eco warrior nonsense, really gets my back up and many very good engines have been destroyed and replaced with rubbish drive trains, to try and comply.
Yes I absolutely agree with you, main thing that’s happening is they are reducing the CC and number of cylinders to crazy small an amounts, then just bolting a big turbo on…. Yes they have the power on paper, but not built to last at all.
9/10 get rubbish MPG and have loads of issues as they are highly stressed
I agree....the Mk 3 would be the one for me out of these two
Don’t get me wrong I like the MK4, but for the price difference, definitely would go for good MK3
Gen 5 Honda CRVs starts from 2017 because my Honda CRV is a 2016 and it's a 4 and Gen 4 starts from 2012 to 2016
I lost track after the MK3, all kind of started to look the same as ever other car at that point
MK3 for me, MK4 looks boring
I agree yep
Mk 3 îs very good. I use it for 1 year. No problems so far. Îs 2.0 petrol, 2007 EXL.
@vasiletiberiuturi3197 uber reliable the 2.0 K20