Pre-Purchase New CR-V - Petrol or Diesel

Discussion in '4th Generation (2013-2017)' started by sc489, Sunday 3rd May, 2015.

  1. sc489 Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    I'm a long term Honda owner and have never had a serious problem in owning 4 Accords. The current Accord has had no faults in 8 years! I'm considering buying a new 4WD CR-V. I drive about 8000 miles a year consisting of 2-3 months doing short journeys 3 miles - 25 miles then a long 300 mile motorway trip 4 times a year. I generally prefer petrol engines due to better refinement and they usually work out cheaper for low mileage users. However, my calculations show the 1.6 CR-V diesel is more cost effective than he petrol version within a few years. Please advise:

    1. How likely are DPF problems with the 1.6 diesel considering my driving profile?
    2. What typical fuel economy do you get from the 4WD petrol engines auto & manual versions for rural driving and long motorway journeys at 70mph?
    3. What are your views on the UK built CR-V reliability and are there any reliability differences between the petrol and diesel versions?
  2. SpeedyGee Administrator Staff Team

    England Speedy Birmingham
    Hi @sc489, welcome to Honda Karma.

    I'll let those more knowledgable on CR-Vs answer you queries for you. Being bank holiday weekend I imagine everyone's been busy.

    You should get some replies soon though.

  3. Nels Moderator Staff Team

    Welcome to HK @sc489 :welcome:.

    I am not a CR-V owner and therefore will leave the specific responses to them.

    Have you seen these two threads?

    In-Depth - Honda Customer Leaflet on Diesel Particulate Filters
    In-Depth - Why does the DPF Filter get clogged with soot ?

    To prevent DPF issues, you need decent fuel, the correct oil and must get your DPF hot enough, for long enough, to burn off the soot. I seriously doubt that your journey profile will fulfil the last two points. Therefore, I believe petrol engines would be better for you. :Hey:
  4. ArcticFire Club Veteran ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    Scotland Graham Scotland
    I've never driven the petrol CR-V but I would definitely recommend driving all three variants of petrol and diesel and see which one provides the power delivery you are happy with.

    I think the low down shove of diesel torque can be easily mistaken for better performance but the power will drop off fast unless you get it remapped but then you can't do that if the car is within warranty.

    Personally I think if you are happy with the petrol performance then I would go for that because there are so many associated weak and more complicated points with diesels that can also become very expensive if out of warranty.

    There's also the potential change with ved and as we have previously experienced with our governments they have no issues with screwing us over with it.

    I think any economy savings with diesels are only applicable if doing lots of motorway miles otherwise there's many maintenance costs to factor in.

    Besides the CR-V is really about space, comfort and refinement and not really about performance, so a petrol would be the perfect marriage of this.

    Don't get me wrong I think the Honda diesel is a great combination of power,economy and refinement compared to other diesels but that said I wish I had got a petrol CR-V or better still the 2.4 accord tourer.
    SpeedyGee likes this.
  5. FirstHonda Moderator Staff Team

    United Kingdom Ed Wiltshire
    Sorry for the delayed reply @sc489 , I've only just seen your thread :Blushing:

    I moved to a petrol / auto CR-V from an I-DTEC 8th Generation Accord about 6 weeks ago, mainly because my driving will be changing from long motorway trips to local short trips due to a change of job.

    To try and answer your questions:

    1. Hard to say with certainty, but there is quite a bit of evidence (on HondaKarma and elsewhere across various marques) that regular short journeys in a DPF equipped diesel will cause issues, unless you can make sure you take the car on a longish trip from time to time. That was one of the main reasons for my change, as I didn't want to ruin the DPF (expensive if replacement needed) or spend lots of time having it manually regenerated. I'm not sure whether 4 longer trips a year would be enough to keep the DPF in good shape TBH, I just don't have the technical knowledge or experience to comment.

    2. I drive carefully, but I've got c42mpg on a 100 mile round trip at 40-50mph, dropping to mid-30's MPG on the motorway cruising at 70mph. Around town it drops off quickly, and with just town use over the past week or so it has dropped to 26mpg (across that period, with no longer trips at all). My sister also has a 2.0 petrol/auto with mixed use, returning mid-30's MPG.

    3. Generally there seems to be a view that petrol is more reliable than diesel, although my experience with my I-DTEC Accord was faultless over 40k miles and 3 years. I think from what I've read that use and maintenance are vital with whatever you have, and I'm sure a properly used and maintained I-DTEC CR-V would see you just as well as a petrol from a reliability perspective (just don't come after me if it doesn't :Laughing:).

    I would also suggest you test drive both engines. The petrol / auto is super smooth and quiet, but it isn't a quick thing. If you are a more aggressive driver (no offence intended!) then it may not be for you. Personally I think it is excellent - and certainly not underpowered - but it depends what your expectations are, what you are coming from, and how you like to drive.

    Hope that helps - and good luck making your choice :Smile:
    Ichiban likes this.
  6. Ichiban Founder Staff Team

    England CJ Leeds
    CR-V petrol are not underpowered they need to be worked hard if you want that performance, They perfectly set up for city and motorway driving they are not made for torque whoosh you get in Diesel.
    FirstHonda likes this.
  7. FirstHonda Moderator Staff Team

    United Kingdom Ed Wiltshire
    ^^ Indeed so, @Ichiban :Thumbup:

    The combination of smooth and quiet performance, a high driving position with excellent visibility, a spacious and practical interior, a comfortable ride and seats, and surprisingly good MPG without worries about a DPF is pretty compelling.
  8. sc489 Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Thanks for your replies.

    I've recently test driven the revised CR-V petrol auto version. Refinement and comfort was fine although another inch of legroom would have been more comfortable being 6' 2". I found the fuel consumption on the test route of 50% urban and 50% motorway at 34 MPG disappointing and there was noticeable wind noise above 60mph.

    I've kept the CR-V in my shortlist but I'm still test driving other cars to see if there is a better option for me.
  9. FirstHonda Moderator Staff Team

    United Kingdom Ed Wiltshire
    Can't comment on the legroom issue as I'm short :Laughing: but I have read elsewhere that taller drivers find the seat base a bit too short which can cause comfort issues on longer trips. It just goes to show the value of a test drive specific to your requirements.

    Fuel consumption (combined) in the brochure is 36.7mpg for the SR and EX petrol/auto, so not sure getting a real world 34mpg is really disappointing. I'd say it is entirely in line with expectations as published by Honda.

    It is also worth bearing in mind that (from reading other threads on HondaKarma) Honda tend to be more realistic with their published MPG figures, and the trip computers tend to under read actuals. This is borne out if you look at the "real MPG" figures in What Car? Anecdotal feedback says some of the German marques take a very different approach in this area... :Wink:

    Obviously I couldn't possibly comment on a friend of mine who was showing an achieved 63mpg on the computer on his E-Class diesel, but was instead getting an actual 50mpg when he worked it out himself :Grin:

    I've just come back from a 400 mile round trip, 90% of which was motorway. At a steady 70mph, with the "econ" button on, I got 40.7 MPG on the outbound trip, and 43.4mpg on the return - which although it is behind the published 47.7mpg for extra urban is still very good for a large petrol/auto SUV :clap:

    ^^This baffles me, frankly. I've driven two or three 4th Generation CR-Vs in all conditions recently and find virtually no wind noise at all. I'm tempted to say that the one you test drove may have had an issue with a door seal or one of the windows slightly open, as this is the exact opposite of my experience as an owner.

    I do find that the CR-V is more fussy about road surface than my Accord was, giving more road noise on coarse surfaces, but as for wind noise? That just has me utterly amazed :Unknown:

    Hope you find something suitable. It sounds to me like you are going to have to go diesel to get the economy figures that you want (and as there are so few other petrol SUVs available), assuming that the extra list price and cost of diesel at the pumps makes that a sensible option. It may be worth looking at the MINI Countryman or Paceman if a slightly smaller car would do the trick, as they have a good range of economical petrol options. I was very tempted...:Whistle:

    The Subaru XV and Forester should also be on your shortlist I'd say.
    Last edited: Friday 15th May, 2015
  10. sc489 Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Maybe some people are more sensitive to wind noise. Here are two test reports which agree with my opinion:

    New 2012 Honda CR-V review - What Car?
    Honda CR-V 2.2 auto | Autocar

    I've found wind noise is an issue on various SUVs I've tried so far. I'm interested in the Subaru option mentioned above and would like to try the new petrol Outback once I can locate one to test drive - but economy is likely to be similar to the petrol CR-V.
  11. FirstHonda Moderator Staff Team

    United Kingdom Ed Wiltshire
    ^^I guess - and you can only go with your experience and perceptions, that is what test drives are all about :Smile:. Still baffles me though, and I am usually very sensitive to a noisy car - those that know me would say almost ridiculously so :Laughing:

    I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the reviews if I were you. If I had I'd have never bought my Accord (which BTW What Car? say is both "extremely quiet" and "very noisy" in two different reviews of the same car, one new (noisy) and one used (super quiet!)).

    Also, by that definition, does that mean that every other review that doesn't mention it mean it wasn't heard? Just a thought...something a motoring journalist once told me. Some magazines have a set format for their reviews so they HAVE to mention certain things even if it wasn't an issue, just to make a comment. Others I'm told give free reign, so what you read is exactly what the journalist felt worth commenting on. Never did find out which do which though, so not very useful...:dunce:

    The Subarus are great cars, let down a bit by their interiors. My sister has had a Legacy Outback for years and it is just superb, totally indestructible (and she's tried lol).

    Meant to add, you should probably also look at the facelift Mazda CX-5, as the interior on that is a huge step forward and (please nobody shoot me) IMHO a definite match for the CR-V. Perhaps even a bit better...:Fear:
  12. sc489 Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Thanks. I hope to see the CX5, RAV4, Audi Q3 and Outback soon. The new Outback interior seems much improved. However, there are some drawbacks:

    CX5 - road & wind noise and no petrol auto

    RAV4 - below par handling and petrol auto is CVT

    Audi - generally below average reliability rating for the brand although the Q3 is rated better than most.

    I've yet to find a better all round car than my current 2006 petrol Accord apart from the Lexus IS300H which had an inadequate break over angle of only 11 degrees for my requirements.
  13. FirstHonda Moderator Staff Team

    United Kingdom Ed Wiltshire
    I didn't realise there wasn't a petrol / auto CX-5, makes the choice even more limited.

    I wouldn't dismiss the RAV4, either. The interior is a bit short on perceived quality, but like the Subarus they are pretty robust and won't cause too many long term issues I wouldn't have thought. Soft touch plastics aren't everything...5 year warranties too. As for CVT gearboxes, they aren't for everybody, but I find if you accept that you need to adapt your driving style to suit the technology then they are fine - better economy too. That said, I didn't buy one...:Laughing:

    Your dilemma sounds similar to mine - the "what can I replace a beloved Accord with" question. It isn't easy I'm afraid! This probably won't help, but you never know...

    General - My next car - decisions, decisions...

    In terms of the Audi Q3, all I can say is if you are considering a VAG group car with a DSG gearbox go in with your eyes open, good recovery cover, and an extended warranty. It says something when on Bing search type in "dsg" and "dsg gearbox problems" is the second most searched for question :lol:

    Seriously though, I had my VW Tiguan (with DSG) for 40k miles and it was hopeless. The gearbox was always hunting for the right gear, and was so hesitant on pull away I found it to be almost dangerous until I got more used to it. The various courtesy Golfs I had were the same.

    I still wasn't happy with it when it went bang (literally) on the outside lane of the join a number of others just at my local dealer waiting for replacement gearboxes due to various issues. Never again will I have a VAG group car. NEVER.

    It told me a lot when the (third time) it broke down the recovery technician turned up and asked what was wrong with it. I told him I thought it was the gearbox (again - it had been replaced once already by this point). He said "It always is with these, they're useless. I see 5 or 6 with these issues every week. I'd get a Japanese car if I were you, never see many issues with those."

    I then got my Accord and haven't looked back :Smile:
  14. sc489 Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Thanks to FirstHonda above for useful link on car buying. Your feedback on VAG cars confirms my research.

    Yes, my 2006 Accord is proving very hard to replace. It handles well, is quiet at speed with little wind and road noise. Economy is good for a 2 litre petrol- 38 MPG urban/rural and 43 MPG on a long distance trip at 70 mph. I've only had one fault in 8 years - to replace the brake master cylinder which was done without fuss under the Honda Extended Warranty which my local dealer offers me for the special price of £250 per year (includes breakdown./recovery). My view is that car design has gone backwards in the last 10 years. I accept the 'infotainment' technology has improved but manufacturers seem to struggle to get the basics right - i.e. refinement, comfort, handling, economy, reliability & ground clearance (see below).

    I had decided to buy a Lexus IS 300H which was the only car I've driven which I would say is better than the Accord. Unfortunately, there is a steep drive I need to negotiate at 12-15 degrees and the Lexus wouldn't handle the incline with its low breakover angle of only 11 degrees. My current Accord has a breakover angle of 13 degrees which gives about only 1" clearance on the drive. I then discovered than many current saloons and hatchbacks have an insufficient breakover angle. This is due to manufacturers extending the wheelbase without a corresponding increase in ground clearance.

    This is why I'm now looking at SUV style cars to obtain a decent breakover angle. I'm also adding the Mazda 3 to my list since it qualifies with a calculated breakover angle of 13.1 degrees - but this also criticised for road noise. The forthcoming Honda HR-V (made in Mexico?) and Mazda CX3 are also possibilities.

    Whatever I buy, I'm keeping the old Accord for a while longer as a second car!
  15. FirstHonda Moderator Staff Team

    United Kingdom Ed Wiltshire
    ^^Very wise I'd say :Grin:

    I've not come across the "breakover angle" before, sounds like you have even more of a challenge!

    Sorry if this is asking an obvious question, but a nearly new 8th Generation Accord wouldn't fit the bill I suppose? Some stupid deals on the stock still available - £16k for a new ES GT petrol/auto, madness!

    Vehicle View - Honda Accord 2.0i-VTEC ES GT Saloon - Blackburn

    BTW, I test drove a Mazda 3 when I thought I should downsize. The deal offered was ridiculous - and I mean it was almost rude NOT to buy it :Aghast:

    Very nice interior, good value, good equipment, and good reputation. What put me off was that it felt like a small car to drive, especially in the refinement area. I didn't think I could live with it - it was too noisy for me, mostly the engine (although it had quite useful performance).

    Good luck!

    Also, you should add your current Accord to the club garage, especially if you are going to keep hold of it...

  16. sc489 Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    The breakover angle is the maximum change in incline a car can drive over without grounding - calculated as 2 * arctan (2 * Ground Clearance / Wheelbase). The current Accord has too low a breakover angle (11.4 degrees) - see my table below. I'm looking for something no worse than my current Accord at 12.82 degrees.

    WheelbaseGround ClearanceBreakover Angle
    Mercedes C2002840927.41
    Mercedes C200 & Airmatic28401179.42
    Lexus IS 300H280013511.02
    Subaru Levorg265013011.21
    BMW 3281014011.38
    Honda Accord 2015270513511.40
    Skoda Superb276113911.50
    VW Golf263113311.55
    Toyota Avensis270014011.84
    VW Passat279114511.86
    BMW 1269014011.88
    VW Jetta265113811.89
    Skoda Octavia268614011.90
    KIA CEED265014012.06
    VW Golf SV268514412.24
    Civic Tourer259514012.32
    Volvo V40 Cross Country264614412.42
    Volvo V40264614512.51
    Honda Accord 2006267015012.82
    Mazda 3270015513.10
    Mazda 6283016313.14
    Honda CR-V 2WD263015513.44
    Mazda CX3257015513.76
    Mercedes A269916513.94
    Mercedes B269916513.94
    Honda CR-V 4WD263016514.30
    Mercedes GLA Comfort Suspension2699170.1814.37
    Octavia Scout267917114.55
    Lexus NX 300H266017014.57
    BMW X12760177.814.68
    KIA Sportage264017214.85
    Audi Q3260317014.88
    Skoda Yeti257818015.90
    Toyota RAV 4266018716.01
    Audi Q5280720016.22
    Volvo V60 Cross Country277420116.49
    Subaru Outback274520016.58
    Mercedes GLA Off-Road Suspension2699203.217.13
    BMW X3281021217.16
    VW Tiguan260420017.47
    Mazda CX5270021518.10
    Subaru Forester264022018.92
    Subaru XV263522018.96
  17. FirstHonda Moderator Staff Team

    United Kingdom Ed Wiltshire
    The Autocar review you've linked to is for the previous version of the CR-V rather than the current car.

    There is no mention of wind noise in the review for the 2013MY - albeit the review is pretty questionable IMHO. The comments about the petrol / auto in particular show "magazine journalist blindness." He quotes an MPG figure of 37.7 as "disastrous" but that is the combined cycle, and actually stands up well to the competition, which he mentions with the diesel but not the petrol. Lazy.

    He also notes that there would be virtually no reason to choose the petrol over the diesel now that the 1.6 I-DTEC has been launched, as the diesel is faster and more economical. BUT he doesn't mention potential DPF issues for low mileage users, which is either more laziness or is irresponsible (or possibly a combination of the two). To be fair, virtually no reviews of diesel cars EVER mention DPF and the usage required to keep them operating properly, which probably is partly why people still buy them and have issues...

    At least he does mention the £2k price difference between petrol and diesel.

    In addition, his comments about the sat nav are hilarious. Having owned a Garmin and a TomTom, and now having had the Honda system in my Accord (same as in my CR-V) I just can't understand what he is talking about...something I also noted in my piece for What Car? about the Accord a few years ago. It may LOOK old fashioned in terms of the graphics, but it works brilliantly. Something you'll only appreciate if you drive a car for more than half a day and actually read the operating manual...did I say lazy?

    Honda CR-V Review | Autocar

    IMHO the What Car? review is far more balanced, albeit with the comments about wind noise :Grin:

    Anyway, any update on your dilemma @sc489?
  18. sc489 Club Member ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    I tried the RAV4 petrol auto this week. The economy was a bit better than the CR-V but it suffered from high road noise, a lumpy ride and bad reflections from the instrument panel. Next ones to try are the Mazda CX5 and Mazda 3 which is one of the few saloons / hatchbacks to have sufficient ground clearance. I've also noticed the forthcoming Honda HR-V but it's made in Mexico - I'm unsure whether this is a negative factor for build quality.
  19. ArcticFire Club Veteran ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    Scotland Graham Scotland
    Technically speaking, it shouldn't really matter where a car is made so long as Honda source in their own quality control people. But I'm not sure how much that really happens because my CR-V has had quite a few issues, although a fair bit of it could be put down to poor servicing and drivers in the past.
  20. FirstHonda Moderator Staff Team

    United Kingdom Ed Wiltshire
    I so nearly went for the Mazda 3 "saloon" version just because the deal was so amazing. A four figure discount, AND more than £1000 more for my Accord than anybody else offered, AND 0% finance AND a £1500 deposit contribution from Mazda. And that was the FIRST offer...

    TBH that did put some doubts about retained value into my mind, and made me question why they had to be so desperate to shift them. That wasn't against a stock car either - it was on an 8 - 12 week order to come from the factory.

    Well made, great specification and the interior was particularly nice IMHO. In the end I just couldn't live with the fact that if felt small to drive, and (ironically given previous posts!) it was very noisy, both from the road and the engine. That would have been fine for local trips, but I know I couldn't live with that lack of refinement for longer trips.

    You may find the Mazda 6 is a better bet - the revised interior on that is excellent too, but I've got no idea how it drives.

    Waiting for the HR-V may be worth it if you don't see anything that grabs you in the meantime. I'd expect Honda quality to be fine wherever it is made, especially as (one assumes) that they export them for sale in Japan - although I would note that my Swindon built CR-V isn't as well made (in the details) as my Japanese built Accord was.