General CR-V 1.6 i-DTEC 120 hp 2WD

Discussion in '4th Generation (2013-2017)' started by kilgortrout, Tuesday 19th Apr, 2016.

  1. kilgortrout New Member Getting Started



    Basically the question is what's the general impression about the car.
    Is it enough hp under the hood for this 1,6t car ? If I live in the hilly area ?
     
  2. legend-ary Moderator Staff Team

    United Kingdom Legend The Big Smoke
    3,798
    2,256
    6
    Loading...
    Ichiban likes this.
  3. Racy Jace Expert Advisor ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    It's not a Honda but 120bhp in a nissan xtrail with 4 lads and 4 bags was fine on the way to Wales. My mate over took some cars easy enough so I would of thought the CR-V would of been fine too. I did try that engine in a Civic tourer and thought it was more than enough.
     
    Loading...
  4. TheDarkKnight Expert Advisor ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    2,688
    492
    On flat roads, it will be ok, but nothing special. Otherwise the 1.6 (120bhp) is gutless when climbing because it has to haul nearly 2 tons of dead weight with it as well. I would not recommend it. The 2.0 petrol (2WD or 4WD) would be a far better option.

    Even the 160bhp 1.6 I-DTEC is breathless - it struggles at the top end. The 2.2 in this regard is fantastic.
     
    Loading...
  5. FirstHonda Premium Member Club Supporter

    The reviews I've read are complimentary about performance, but less so about refinement. Agree with @TheDarkKnight - if you are after a CR-V diesel you'd be wise to test drive a 2.2 I-DTEC as well as a 1.6, even though the bigger engine has been discontinued now.

    :goodluck:
     
    Loading...
  6. BEA Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom BEA London
    77
    43
    The latest 4WD has 160BHP and in the case of the Auto transmission it has 9 (yes nine) gears which means that the engine mostly sits running at maximum output while the gears deliver the selected road speed speed. Effectively every 10mph segment of the speedo has it's own gear!

    It doesn't sound anything like a German 6 cylinder (sadly) but it moves along quite satisfactorily nevertheless. I find it ok on the motorway and once the '#'#'#y! auto-stop has been switched off it is pretty fast at roundabouts too. I've not tried the 2.2 but its biggest issue right now is that they are not making any more of them !!
     
    Loading...
  7. Explorador Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Spain Javier Cádiz
    22
    22
    Hello.
    We are absolutely satisfied with that engine..exceptional MPG and very good performances for that tiny cylinders.
    We drive it at 150 km h without effort,fully charged..no complaints,even when there are hills.
    The response of the 1.6 I-DTEC is magic:no problems at low RPM and very good torque being a 1.6.
    And best moment is when you look at the amazing MPG..about 5 liters at 100 km.
    Simply incredible.The engine moves the car as it was a 2.0 .
    This car doesn't have 4WD,so weight is around 1500 kg,as a medium car today.
    I hardly recommend it.We in Spain(I know it because I am member of a CR-V 's forum) are absolutely happy with the 1.6 2WD,even people who came from 2.2 I-DTEC in Civic's and Accord's.
    The only problem is that we still don't know about the long term reliability because the short life of 1.6 I-DTEC (from 2013),but we have members close to 100.000 km and zero problems.Didn't heard from any problem.
    And 2.0 is not recommended for climbing if you don't want to be playing with the gears all the time.
    The 1.6 I-DTEC climbs amazingly even loaded..it's an incredible motor.Believe me.
     
    Loading...
    Ichiban, Racy Jace and FirstHonda like this.
  8. TheDarkKnight Expert Advisor ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    2,688
    492
    With the greatest of respect, the 1.6 (120hp) 2WD is absolutely useless climbing. I've done a fair few climbs in the Scottish Glens and Highlands with a CR-V (SE-spec) belonging to my uncle and its utterly useless. Even at 1500kg, the engine struggles on gradients above 15/20% or more, irrespective of load.

    While the engine is fine for flat-road drives, it is no AWD and certainly doesnt have the "oomph" to compare to the 150bhp engines.
     
    Loading...
  9. Explorador Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Spain Javier Cádiz
    22
    22
    Well,I do respect your opinion,but heard no one complainted about climbing,and we are a lot of users,and many in hilly places.
    It can maintain speed of 130 km h in highway ramps without hesitation..we have mountains in Spain too.
    I would't recommend the 2.0 to climb,that has to be at high RPM's,needing to put it in lower gears often when thing goes up.
    The 2.2 will be better as it has a bigger size in the cylinders,but I think Honda proved that the 1.6 was going to be enough.
    Downsizing has economical reasons,too,but in this case performances didn't suffered.
    Obviously,fuel consumption is absolutely where 1.6 sets the difference.
    I don't know if your scottish hills were terrible,and if the lack of AWD is critical in your cases..sometimes good winter tires are better than AWD.I don't know the gradient of the roads the opener of the thread are going to drive everyday.
    I think future possible users have to test the car if they have fears..always.
    And not everyone is looking for the same sensations.

    Ask the dealer always for a test if you can,that's the better option.
     
    Loading...
  10. TheDarkKnight Expert Advisor ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    2,688
    492
    @Explorador - Likewise, I fully respect your position, viewpoint and personal experience. I also fully concur with you that test drives are a must as well.

    The only discernible difference between the 2.2 I-DTEC and the 1.6 I-DTEC is this:

    The 1.6 I-DTEC was set out from the start as a 120bhp unit. Changes to it have boosted power to 160bhp. While thats no bad thing, its certainly pushing the boundary/maxxing out of what that engine can do. Whereas the 150bhp 2.2 engine never got a similar power boostage during its lifetime, and is why it is far better and more robust with a punch than the 160bhp 1.6 engine.

    Having sampled the 1.6 160BHP engine in manual and auto guise, the extra 10bhp is invisible and not noticeable at all. Sure, its quieter and better on fuel, but on power, you'd struggle to tell that it has ten more BHP than the 2.2 unit.

    I guess if both engines were mapped, the 2.2 would have a lot more scope for better power/fuel/refinement delivery over the 1.6 engine.
     
    Loading...
  11. Explorador Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Spain Javier Cádiz
    22
    22
    Darknight,I was talking about 1.6 I-DTEC 120 HP.
    In the 160 HP,if automatic,I think that gearbox it is too economic :low in RPM's because of that 9 speed election.Bad for climbing.Works under 2000 RPM most of the time.Don't know about possible EGR/DPF's cloggings..
    Thanks for your opinion,too!
     
    Loading...
  12. Racy Jace Expert Advisor ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    My 150 BHP petrol auto is crap at hills. It just takes me 6 seconds longer to get up to speed . 3rd gear acceleration from 60mph is a joke but the cars quiet and has a nice glass roof and likes going round bends quickly so I don't mind.

    If the 2.2 I-DTEC auto is as efficient as I reading I think that would of been a better option for me now but as I can't garentee my job situation a petrol car is far safer option.

    I do like the idea of a 7 seater as my CR-V was a bit short the other day when trying to get a 3.5m length of wood in it. I'm sure the coving I bought a while back was the same length and that fitted in the accord.
     
    Loading...
  13. FirstHonda Premium Member Club Supporter

    I don't understand that @Racy Jace :Unknown:

    I go up a long hill regularly from the A34 at Oxford onto the A420. It's about a couple of miles long, dual carriageway.

    From a standing start (traffic lights at the bottom) - always with economy on, and never using the paddles (pointless, just never bother) the car will hold onto each gear almost to the red line if I keep my foot buried. It's quick and makes a good noise.

    Mid-range in the same circumstances, using the kick down rather than the paddles and still with economy it does the same. 60-80 even up that hill is simple. Should say I am very used to driving automatics - having never driven anything else in almost 30 years.

    Pity I don't have a dash camera as I could post as an example of how it performs. Weird that yours sounds so different in terms of performance.
     
    Loading...
  14. Racy Jace Expert Advisor ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    The performace of my car is to the spec of Honda but when compared to the torque of a diesel the car is so much slower to get up hills. May be i should be red lining it more lol. After 4 seconds of WOT i tend to take my foot off the gas. The car is brisk on the flat but I live in a hilly area and pulling out of the same junction to go immediately up the hill takes longer and the speeding cars get rather close to my backside now. The CR-V has the same flat spots as my auto Celica and that had similar power to weight so nothing new there.

    I'm sure between me and @TheDarkKnight we could do a scientific test between the two auto's :Grin:
     
    Loading...
  15. ArcticFire-Account Closed Banned Getting Started

    Scotland Graham Scotland
    3,521
    1,051
    7
    My 2.2CDTi CR-V has been remapped on a 4x4 capable rolling road to 180bhp and 400Nn of torque and it made quite a noticeable difference with pulling power but also with the power band. There's no levelling out so it will now maintain the acceleration rate right up to redline. It could be remapped higher and the engine could handle it but the general opinion seemed to be 180bhp and 400Nn was the maximum safe level for the clutch so I didn't want to push it. Still returns good economy if you just drive it normally but nice to have the extra power on tap if you need it.

    Been running flawlessly since the remap. I don't think you could push the 1.6 to these levels? Not sure how much you could safely take the newer 2.2iDTEC to but I would assume a little more?
     
    Loading...
    Racy Jace likes this.
  16. FirstHonda Premium Member Club Supporter

    ^^ CR-V drag racing...:likeit:

    Having now had my CR-V for a year it's hard to compare properly with my diesel Accord. My perception is that - on that same long hill that I use a lot - the CR-V is stronger at the start and from half-way up, the Accord stronger in the middle (if that makes sense). The Accord definitely used to run out of 'puff' - I just can't think of another way to describe it - but had more 'shove' once it had got going. It was far less inclined to drop a gear though, and wouldn't rev anywhere near as high.

    Next time you have a good hill and an empty road @Racy Jace leave your foot buried - regardless - it will hold the gear and start to go, trust me!

    :vtec:
     
    Loading...
    Racy Jace likes this.
  17. 155695 Premium Member Club Supporter

    England Keith Essex
    347
    164
    In Eco-mode I must admit mine has difficulty maintaining speed on long uphill gradients on, for example, motorways, when it appears to be reluctant to change down. It also appears reluctant to kick down when in Eco. This problem is easily overcome by switching Eco off in those circumstances. When in normal mode, it drives like a different car and easily maintains speeds, changing gear quickly as necessary.

    Keith
     
    Loading...
    Racy Jace likes this.
  18. ArcticFire-Account Closed Banned Getting Started

    Scotland Graham Scotland
    3,521
    1,051
    7
    What kind of MPG are you getting? The one I test drove recently had over 60mpg on it with dealership use. Probably a lot of local driving so that's pretty damn good!
     
    Loading...
  19. FirstHonda Premium Member Club Supporter

    ^^ I'm now worried that my 'Econ' mode isn't working properly :Laughing: as the characteristics seem different from my car. Online elsewhere, I've read owners say that 'Econ' disengages (for safety reasons perhaps?) at full throttle - which would explain what I think I'm feeling i.e. that it holds gears and accelerates the same at full beans as with 'Econ' off.

    Surprisingly, the owners manual written by Satan and all his helpers has only a couple of lines about 'Econ' and doesn't explain how it works, or whether what I think I'm feeling is real or just perception...so...

    ...I've e-mailed Honda Technical to ask the question! This should be interesting :Smile:

    On a related note, my sister - who has the exact same model albeit an EX rather than an SR - and who has been in my car a few times, tells me that her CR-V doesn't accelerate anywhere near as well as mine. Answers on a postcard to...:Bye:
     
    Loading...
  20. TheDarkKnight Expert Advisor ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    2,688
    492
    Definitely agree on that! I did just that today on a steepish hill - wow, I was amazed - the auto moves far more faster and stronger than the manual! Switching to an auto could have been the best move I have made!

    You're on! :Laughing:
     
    Loading...
    Racy Jace likes this.