Discussion in '4th Generation (2013-2017)' started by Lisbon, Wednesday 20th Jan, 2016.
Long-term test review: Honda CR-V | Auto Express
Wow that's quite a damming review. 3/5 not good. Might persuade me to go elsewhere if I was in the market for one.
Driving almost the same car SR vs EX I find a reasonable mix of town and long distance journeys sees the computer display reporting a tank average of 42 MPG although full tank to full tank calculations based on intervening odometer mileage works out at around 38 or 39. (Cars tend to underestimate their odometer mileage though safest assumptions on minimum tyre diameter etc. although that doesn't explain the whole difference I fear.) Lets assume the truth is around 40mpg. I can't get too disappointed about this as its a darn sight nearer the manufacturer's claim than my Broadband speed !!
I reluctantly agree on the infotainment annoyances and '2009 period' feature set and the 'too many touch's to do anything' user interface. That said I can play my mp3's find my way to places and pair my phone fine for calls and for WiFi but in 2015 no audible/ text displayed text alert for iPhones (at least) and the need to alternate touch screen presses and hard-keys to swap from MP3 to map etc. is pretty dismal. It could all be finished off and the interface tidied up in a software upgrade but I'm not holding my breath for that.
The real question is what would the reviewer rather have for the same money at the same time ?
The real question if Honda had paid a bung for this review this would have been the best car in the market.
Seems like a fair assessment to me. Can't see why she didn't set things up before she set off, and I only have to press TA to switch Traffic Announcements On or Off. Maybe commuting in Londonshire is not the best place for economy check, as you might be spending a lot of time in lower gears.
Hmmm, glad I couldn't afford one and went for the old 2.2 instead
If you had asked me before the AWD 1.6 was introduced if I would tow a 1400kg caravan with a 1.6 diesel I would have thought you were taking the P*ss! Flogging a little engine to death to acheive what seems impossible can only end in tears (I know, I've done it !). A bigger, more relaxed motor would
always perform better and usually be more economical dragging a heavy car.
Maybe Honda should do as other car makers and produce a bigger engined alternative, say a 2.2 for instance
But then again, what do I know, I'm only a customer!
Pete C. (aka Luddite/dinosaur)
This says it all for me re Honda over the past few years. Seems to be very much a case of "never mind what you want to buy, here's what we're going to sell you".
I currently have a 2013 CR-V EX which I've been very happy with. What I'd like to buy is a new CR-V with the same lovely 2.2 diesel, maybe tweaked a little to get around 180bhp. In similar vein it would be nice if I could have a more modern, more responsive and better thought-out ICE/Satnav system, a Ford-type heated screen and maybe heated rear seats. Oh, and if I could have some different colour options rather than the same-old range, that would be nice too. How much of this can I have? That's right, none of it!
It really is getting to the point where, having bought nothing but Hondas since my first one in 1985, I am pretty certain I'll reluctantly be going elsewhere this time round.
Yup, every dealer I went to in my search for the CR-V saw my FR-V and told me they get two or three queries every week about finding one. You know, the one Honda deleted from the range in 2010!
I'd say that's quite a fair review. Not having owned one, I can't comment on the economy not having owned a diesel CR-V, but that seems to be very similar to the experience of @Lisbon so no reason to doubt the accuracy.
The only thing I dispute is the cost. Looking at the standard equipment vs German rivals, it would cost a lot more to spec (say) a BMW X1 or X3, or an Audi Q3 or even a VW Tiguan to equivalent levels.
On the positive side, I see that What Car? have started to actually reference the poor reliability of the German competition in their latest reviews, which is nice. In their latest issue, they reviewed three SUVs - BMW X1, Audi Q3 and Range Rover Evoque.
In the verdict, they note;
"The previous X1 was also one of the least reliable cars in its class, which is a reputation this new version will want to shed quickly."
"The Q3 takes second spot...[it] hasn't proved especially reliable..."
Speaking to a colleague the other day about his (very nice looking) BMW 6-Series. "Looks lovely, but it's the worst car I've ever owned. It's like I only have it on a timeshare basis with the dealer - it is always there having something fixed."
For me the real world economy of all diesel cars - seemingly automatics in particular - is an issue as manufacturers look for headline figures achieved in lab conditions. This doesn't just affect Honda. So, do I want reliability and practicality or a prestige badge, probably a better driving experience and nicer plastics in the interior but higher maintenance costs and worries about reliability?
IMHO for a company car, the choice is obvious - go German as the costs are lower, and it gets fixed for free or when it is older and gone to some poor unfortunate. For a private purchase, go Japanese.
Just to add some What Car? 'True MPG' (where they drive the cars in the same, real world, conditions to get accurate comparisons) - I've mainly selected SUVs for comparison, but they haven't tested everything so there are some gaps which I've tried to fill:
Audi Q5 2.0 TDi Quattro - Gvt avg 47.9 / True MPG 40.6
BMW 320d Efficient Dynamics - Gvt avg 68.9 / True MPG 54.2
BMW 520d SE - Gvt avg 62.8 / True MPG 48.5
Honda CR-V 1.6 i-DTEC 2WD - Gvt avg 62.8 / True mpg 56.5 *This is what says to me that either the auto box OR the 4WD (or a combination of the two) is something to do with the poor economy, as this is the same engine. The Civic numbers are strong too (72.4 vs 61.8).
Ford Mondeo 2.0TDCi Titanium - Gut avg 67.3 / True MPG 45.1
Hyundai Sante Fe 2.2 CRDi Premium - Gvt avg 46.3 / True MPG 37.6
Kia Sorrento 2.2. CRDi KX-4 - Gvt avg 41.5 / True MPG 34.6
Range Rover Evoque 2.2 SD4 Pure - Gvt avg 49.6 / True MPG 36.4
Mazda 6 2.2d SE Nav - Gvt avg 72.4 / True MPG 54.8
Nissan Qashqai 1.5dCi Acenta - Gvt avg 74.3 / True MPG 54.7
Skoda Yeti 1.6TDi Greenline II - Gvt avg 61.4 / True MPG 47.8
VW Tiguan 2.0TDi BM 2WD - Gvt avg 56.5 / True MPG 51.7
Volvo XC60 D4 SE - Gvt avg 62.8 / True MPG 42.8
Surprisingly (to me) the VW Tiguan is the closest there. Based on my experience though, you can't use much diesel on the back of an AA Recovery truck, so that probably explains it...
While true, the reality is that every, and I mean every non-US motoring magazine has a slant against Japanese machines unless its a crappy Mazda or an even crapper French-molested Nissan. At least some of the US motoring press will rave about Honda's because they see the value of what makes the brand tick. There's a very good reason the CR-V and Accord sell so well over there. Including the Ridgeline, Pilot and Odyssey. And thats before we throw in the Acura brand.
The AutoExpress tools clearly don't know how to drive. Thats all there is to say about that. If it had been a POS Mazda CX5 or something, they would have got 50 billion MPG or something like that - much in the way that Mitsubishi openly lies about the performance of its hideously crap Outlander PHEV that has more cheap tatty plastic inside it than a Chinese eye-fone factory.
People need to do proper evaluations themselves and not get sucked into the baloney scribed by morons at a motoring magazine. Sadly though, thats a reality that will never happen.
I do wonder how much of reliability is related to the driver also. Take my CR-V, loads of problems with thousands spent on it within one year including turbo work! Since everything has now been fixed not a single thing has gone wrong.
My 330 has now passed 10,000 miles - a lot of which is been hard acceleration. But I don't thump over speed bumps, don't hammer the brakes all the time etc. In those 10,000 miles not a single thing has gone wrong. Same goes for the other two 330s which were acquired at the same time, although I can't comment on their driving.
Although there are things I don't like about the 330 such as very poor rear legroom, and I've certainly got not loyalty to BMW, what I do have is a fast, very well handling (even in the snow!) and seemingly reliable car which I can also surpass official MPG figures when on the motorway.
I can't complain really. Would still jump to Honda if they bring out the right car though but if BMW release a touring version of the 330e it will be tough because the emissions /preformance combination make it a very attractive option, especially considering the rate at which bik is increasing to line the pockets of Parliament.
Separate names with a comma.