No AWD should be able to scrape it's undercarriage when going through snow or off the beaten path. A skid plate should be a must to protect the gas tank. I am not trying to make this into a serious off road vehicle but it has some offroad capabilities which should require higher ground clearance, a skid plate as mentioned above, and a heavy duty material in the wheel wells to keep rocks, salt and debris from entering the engine compartment such as the Nissan Xterra has. Wider tires wouldn't hurt either. Oh and one more thing.......It would be nice to have another idiot light to let you know when your AWD has engaged. :)

LittleDogBox
Arlington, Va.

I agree. I took my E down a rather well maintained mining trail in the mountains, caught a rock sticking barely above the roadway while traveling only about 5 mph, and bent one of the guards against the driveshaft -- looking back to see that the 8" rock had been pulled from the road. Although it was simple to fix by banging it with a rock back in place -- this should not have happened. It definitely needs another 2-3" and more rugged guarding IF Honda is going to continue to advertise it for an active lifestyle. If they want to call it a city vehicle, I say leave things alone as this will add weight and decrease fuel efficiency. A trade-off I guess....

The CRV has 8.1 in of clearance vs. 6 something for the Element. Same suspension essentially so it should be possible.

I suspect the E sits lower because of it's taller/blockier body Honda wanted to make sure the handling/stability would be acceptable. Additionally, I think the E was targeted more as a hip, urban Gen "Y" sort of vehicle rather than something you'd take the kids camping in so less ground clearance was allowed for.

Love both the V and the E.

I'd love them even more if Honda would get just a little more serious and give them real AWD systems and more rugged suspensions and skidplates so they could actually endure some rough use. They'd be perfect then!

As is, I would expect a Subaru Forester to hold up alot better, but I don't WANT a Forester damn it. I want a CRV or an Element with Forester capabilities. :shock:

[quote:0af87e4f2c="hedgeborn"]I suspect the E sits lower because of it's taller/blockier body Honda wanted to make sure the handling/stability would be acceptable. Additionally, I think the E was targeted more as a hip, urban Gen "Y" sort of vehicle rather than something you'd take the kids camping in so less ground clearance was allowed for.[/quote:0af87e4f2c]

In addition to the reasons above, the low clearance is a result of the low load-floor needed for the higher cargo volume (note I didn't say 'cargo capacity' <grin>).

Was certainly useful for moving a huge TV a few weekends back.

-brendan

I too have been, well, let's say, nervous about the low ground clearance but more so than actually having trouble with it.

I have taken my E over several hundred miles of unpaved roads, mostly national parks like Canyonlands and Big Bend and the only trouble I had was with a rough switchback road called Shafer's Trail road which dropped several hundred feet in a mile. When the pavement turned into football-sized stones I had to get out and actually shove stones around to allow the E to clear the debris. Soft mud or sand can be difficult as well -- you can deflate the tires some but it's easy to sink in up to the gas tank and bogged down. Time for block and tackle.

Anyway, that's only one or two "difficult" situations over 15,000 miles, 80 national parks, monuments, and historical sites and more rough road that Honda would have ever suggested I attempt.

I think I would prefer tires designed slightly more for off-road before drastically changing the ground clearance. But even then I'd be reluctant to give up the gas mileage; over 90% of my miles are on highways where I'm getting 26.0 MPG (AWD EX with the rear seats removed).