Pre-Purchase Potential New CR-V Owner - questions

Discussion in '4th Generation (2013-2017)' started by Weetabix, Friday 8th Jul, 2016.

  1. Weetabix Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆


    First post so please be gentle with me!

    I am seriously looking at a 14/64 plate 2.2 I-DTEC Auto EX and wonder if there's anything in particular I should look out for?

    I am also a bit concerned about MPG so wonder if anyone can comment on realistic figures as (I believe) the auto box is only 5 speed - is this correct?

    Thanks in advance for any help. :Smile:
  2. Nels Moderator Staff Team

    Hi @Weetabix and welcome to HK.
    It's customary for new members to 'Introduce Yourself' before jumping in with questions.

    As for the CR-V, if you browse through this section, you'll find a wealth of information.
    The 2.2 I-DTEC engine delivers very good real world MPG figures, even on the auto. The most important thing is to change the oil, ideally every 6k and use the correct spec. for DPFs
    Additionally, you must go on long enough journeys, regularly to keep the DPF clear.

    I'll let the CR-V guys give you more specific answers.
    FirstHonda likes this.
  3. Weetabix Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Custom now adhered to :Smile:.

    Thanks for the reply - look forward to receiving more info from the learned and experienced CR-V owners.
    FirstHonda and Nels like this.
  4. Nels Moderator Staff Team

  5. FirstHonda Premium Member Club Supporter

    Hi @Weetabix

    Off the top of my head:

    - With the diesel, make sure it has been serviced to the correct schedule and that it has the correct oil grade as they can be quite sensitive. If there are service receipts, so much the better, and if it will be serviced by Honda prior to collection you'll need to insist on 0w30 oil
    - Make sure you'll be doing some longer trips to keep the DPF healthy. Issues are known where cars are only used for short journeys all the time
    - Check the alignment of the front doors at the top where the chrome trim meets the same trim on the back door. It's a quick an easy adjustment, but worth looking for
    - The interior plastics on the bottom of the doors can mark and scuff easily, so check that as it's a good indicator of whether the car has been looked after
    - The TPMS can cause problems - although there is a software update to fix it - so ask whether that has been done and look out for it on a longish test drive
    - There have been some who have experienced more than expected stone chipping to the front bumper, seemingly on the metallic colours. Not a huge issue, and not an issue at all on the white orchid pearl based on my experience!
    - On darker coloured paintwork there was an issue with some 2014/15 cars where the protective plastic applied at the factory left 'blotches.' These were removed with heat treatment or re-spray work and should have been sorted but worth asking the dealer specifically if the car you are looking at was affected
    - If you are looking at a facelift version, it will have the Honda 'Connect' sat nav/ system. The early ones were quite slow - again a software update helped - but personally I prefer the 'proper' built in Honda sat nav system on the pre-facelift cars having tried both. It looks old fashioned, but it does!

    That's all I can think of at the moment. They are cracking cars.

    legend-ary, Ichiban and SpeedyGee like this.
  6. Weetabix Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    That's really helpful thanks and I will have a look out for those things when I go to have a look.

    In terms of the facelift I will have to ask the dealer whether it's pre or post facelift as I am actually not sure.
  7. FirstHonda Premium Member Club Supporter

  8. SpeedyGee Administrator Staff Team

    England Speedy Birmingham
    Here's a side by side

  9. Weetabix Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Ah ok I can see the difference now - the one i had been looking at is definitely pre facelift so I assume that it will have the Honda 'Built In' Sat Nav.

    Another question if you don't mind. I have some flexibility price wise and am looking at long term ownership so is the 1.6 a better option than the 2.2? I assume it has the 9 speed auto box and other new features?

    Thanks again.
  10. Bomber209 Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom Lanky Aberdeen
    Hi Weetabix; Take a look at the tailgate, if there's a pronounced lip it's pre-face lift. I have a 15 YoM 2.2 EX post face lift. Expect 35-40 MPG with out being to light footed. As the others have said take it for a good (20 mile) run and boot it if you only do short hops, it helps keep the DPF healthy. I got 'Life Shine' on mine and it puts a protective layer on the paint (they say). Enjoy reading the 'Brick' persevere with it. Sat Nav is OK but would be better with fixed camera points, like others have (I can understand Honda's quandry).
  11. Nels Moderator Staff Team

    I have been on test drives in both the 1.6 and 2.2. Both were great, but obviously cannot comment on long term use.

    The thing I would be a little concerned with would be what the Government may do in the future with road tax on diesels?
  12. FirstHonda Premium Member Club Supporter

    There have been reports of the 1.6 not delivering anything near claimed economy. Anecdotal evidence from the forum suggests the 2.2 is more consistent in this respect.

    As @Nels says, you need to drive both and see what you think. Personally I'd stick with the 2.2 as I had that engine in my Accord and it's very good indeed.
  13. Weetabix Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Again thanks that's useful input. I must admit I have a number of options and am looking for that sweet spot of quality, reliability and comfort. My driving will be at least weekly return trips from home to the Lakes so there will be no issue with the DPF or short journeys only as that's a weekly leg stretch of around 200 miles mainly motorway.

    The economy is a factor for me to be honest but I have to balance this against the cost. At the moment (not that this will be of any interest to you guys but just to give it more context) I am also looking at a Rav4, Yeti and XC60 D4. My current car is a V40 D4 and the engine is an utter peach with 190bhp on tap and also economy of 50+ MPG. Clearly any SUV/4x4 type is going to suffer economy wise but the CR-V and Rav4 do seem to be particularly thirsty. However, the price difference between the Volvo and 2.2 CR-V is around £5k and that can't be ignored.

    The main rationale is that I want a vehicle that I can put 2 x mountain bikes in the back. In that respect the CR-V wins hands down boot wise.
  14. FirstHonda Premium Member Club Supporter

    If you are looking at a Yeti with the DSG gearbox, then be aware of all the reliability issues VAG have with them.

    My previous Tiguan went bang at 40k miles, there were three others awaiting new boxes at the dealership as they were on back order. They've done recalls elsewhere I believe, but not in the UK.

    I'll never touch a VAG group product again.
  15. Weetabix Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Yeah I have done a lot of research and I must admit that is rather off putting for both the Tiguan (which I also looked at) and the Skoda. It's a shame really as, looks aside, it's actually a really practical car. Pre my current Volvo and the 3 series before that I always had Toyotas and never ever ever had a single issue. That's the attraction of Honda/Toyota to be honest but I just prefer the aesthetics of the Honda inside - just feels higher quality plus the boot is bigger.
  16. Nels Moderator Staff Team

  17. TheDarkKnight Expert Advisor ★ ★ ★ ★ ★


    The 2.2 I-DTEC is brilliant. I had a manual before, managed to get 65mpg+ out of that on long runs for fun.

    The Tumbler (Show Us Your Car - )

    I have the autobox now, obviously a little thirstier, but not much. The 5-speed box is fine, no quibbles.

    I think overall is much better than the 1.6 engine as it has more "oomph" to it. But I covet the space, and thats what I bought it for, I wouldn't touch a dirty Volvo if you paid me. Overpriced crap and nasty bland cheap plastics, much like the crappy RAV4 and Tiguan.

    For reference, I get about 35mpg or more on short trips/urban runs and 50mpg+ on longer missions. I have no complaints. I knew the auto would be a bit more juicy, but theres not that much in it when you factor in your driving style. Hands down, I'd pick the CR-V over any other crap out there competing with it - and on EX grade, you get a LOT of car for you money that no other size-comparable SUV can give.
  18. Bomber209 Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom Lanky Aberdeen
    Hi, I had a Volvo XC60, and loved it. SWMBO didn't like it as she thought it a bit 'Clumpy' and felt too closed in, she also slid around on the leather seats. Now she finds the CR-V comfy and easy to drive, even with the leather seats. Also on the Volvo I had to reposition the head rest as it forced my head forward (I like to sit upright), and it didn't seem as roomy in the back.
  19. Weetabix Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    I am driving a CR-V for the first time tomorrow and have an option on an EX - I agree it seems like a lot of car for the money and, strangely, the panoramic roof is a big draw mainly as I have never had one before.

    I'd probably disagree that the Volvo is nasty - my V40 is a great car and the new D4 is something else for a 4 pot diesel - it absolutely flies and returns over 50 MPG without trying and the interior is really high quality. I was out and about on Friday and sat in both an XC60 and CR-V and they are both quality cars, no doubt. The price differential of £4k for equivalent spec is likely to be the determining factor at the end of the day as long as I am happy with the way the Honda drives.
  20. C5CONVERT Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    United Kingdom David Bedford
    I can echo the above 2.2 diesel MPG figures of around mid to high thirties on very (less than 5 miles) short trips and over 50 on gentle (within speed limits) on long ones.

    At times I only do very short journeys (1.6 miles each way). So far, touch wood, the DPF hasn't complained.

    My main gripe is that the ride is nowhere near as smooth as my old Citroen C5 with hydractive suspension, and gets worse when towing a caravan, which I did last week for the first time, without any power/stability problems.

    However, overall the CR-V seems to be a good car and will be even better if I get over 15 years of trouble-free motoring out of it (whereas the Citroens definitely need a bit of specialised "nuturing" as they get older.