Today i saw the new model. And maybe it's a bit better materials inside, but for me it's not better car.

1. Definitly Seat and ArmRest much better in Mk3

2. Adjustability of rear seats much better in Mk3 (central Seat goes down, and it's nice for transporting skiis and long objects.

3. Rear Seats goes 15 cm back and froth (very nice sometimes)

4. Shelf on half in the boot (very nice).

MK3 is very smooth and very comfortable vehicle, and seem that on 2.0 petrol is exactly the same, so i cant see any improvement (Start Stop, but only for city driving).

Also new model here is much more expensive, so Mk3 for me is better one (maybe i dont like the rear part of Mk4)

Greetings

That should help you to make up your mind, Krell. Keep the CR-V that you've got: the proceeds of sale of your Citroen will help with the running costs of the Honda.

All the things that seem to be important to you - arm rest, seats, storage are easily quantifiable by sitting in it for 5 minutes at a showroom. Fuel consumption is slightly improved across the range, this is because Honda have abandoned any pretence that the CR-V is a 4x4 and have fitted a weedy, electronically torque limited rear drivetrain - meaning the vehicle is essentially 2WD with a slight assist from the rear when slippage is detected. The older CR-Vs would split drive pretty much 50/50 when the system detected a front to rear wheel speed differential.

The rear wheel drive assist is so feeble that you can't really expect the system to get you out of trouble if the front wheels completely lose traction - so you may as well save your money and buy a two wheel drive MPV and reap the fuel consumption benefits of not lugging the largely superfluous rear drivetrain components around.