[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by Sahil

Any idea what the petrol CVT acceleration figures are? I haven't been able to find that

They have not tested it yet with V-Box. Meanwhile, the 1.6L 160 BHP Honda CR-V diesel gets to 100 kmph from standstill in 10.26 seconds.

[AbhiJ]

So I just test drove the diesel CRV again...



Took a photo of the trip meter.. Does this make any sense? 12.4 kmpl of a test drive vehicle?

[superbhikari]

Originally Posted by AbhiJ

So I just test drove the diesel CRV again...

Attachment 1810700

Took a photo of the trip meter.. Does this make any sense? 12.4 kmpl of a test drive vehicle?

My 3500 kms old XUV AT showing exactly same figure of 12.5 kmpl. Atleast I enjoy superb engine. Pure driving bliss with lots of space at Rs. 12 Lacs less.

[nakul0888]

Originally Posted by AbhiJ

So I just test drove the diesel CRV again...

Attachment 1810700

Took a photo of the trip meter.. Does this make any sense? 12.4 kmpl of a test drive vehicle?

Well that would be normal wouldn’t it. It’s a test drive car. It’s driven most of the times in a rough manner. God knows what kind of abuse the guys at dealerships put it through. I would even say 12.5 kmpl average reading on such a big car that’s being put to abuse daily is even impressive.

[AbhiJ]

Originally Posted by nakul0888

Well that would be normal wouldn’t it. It’s a test drive car. It’s driven most of the times in a rough manner. God knows what kind of abuse the guys at dealerships put it through. I would even say 12.5 kmpl average reading on such a big car that’s being put to abuse daily is even impressive.

12.4 kmpl in Kolkata is quite high in my opinion.

[nakul0888]

Originally Posted by smartcat

Honda CRV Diesel AT:

0 to 100 kmph: 12.92 secs
20 to 80 kmph: 7.08 secs
40 to 100 kmph: 9.75 secs

Toyota Fortuner AT

0 to 100 kmph: 12.02 secs
20 to 80 kmph: 7.49 secs
40 to 100 kmph: 10.06 secs

Ford Endeavor 2.2L 4x2 AT

0 to 100 kmph: 12.68 secs
20 to 80 kmph: 7.37 secs
40 to 100 kmph: 9.57 secs

Ford Endeavor 3.2L 4x4 AT

0 to 100 kmph: 11.22 secs
20 to 80 kmph: 6.34 secs
40 to 100 kmph: 8.58 secs

Skoda Kodiaq AT

0 to 100 kmph: 10.62 secs
20 to 80 kmph: 7.16 secs
40 to 100 kmph: 8.4 secs


Source: Autocar India

Ok so I’m confused here. Everyone including me got all worked up about the puny 1.6 single turbo in the CRV moaning about how it’s so slow and underpowered but the figures suggest it’s not doing that bad compared to the competition. In fact in roll on performance CRV comes ahead. So what’s the deal here? Are we talking about sluggish performance at really top end speeds like 120 plus ?

[kaviprem]

Originally Posted by nakul0888

Are we talking about sluggish performance at really top end speeds like 120 plus ?

I guess so and I recall most of the reviews like Autocar, NDTV, etc suggested that the initial push is good and its going well upto reaching 3 digit speeds. Probably, the engine capacity struggles to attain 120+ kmph. This could be the reason why the overtaking should be better planned on highways.

Prem.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by nakul0888

Ok so I’m confused here. Everyone including me got all worked up about the puny 1.6 single turbo in the CRV moaning about how it’s so slow and underpowered but the figures suggest it’s not doing that bad compared to the competition. In fact in roll on performance CRV comes ahead. So what’s the deal here? Are we talking about sluggish performance at really top end speeds like 120 plus ?

Three things: 300 Nm torque, 9 speed AT and just 1.7 tonnes kerb weight. Looks like there is just 10 to 20% difference between CR-V and its competitors when we compare power to weight or torque to weight ratios.

Honda CR-V 1.6 iDTEC 4WD AT:

Power: 120 BHP
Torque: 300 Nm
Weight: 1.72 tonnes

Power to weight ratio: 70 BHP per tonne
Torque to weight ratio: 175 Nm per tonne

Skoda Kodiaq 2.0L TDI 4WD AT

Power: 150 BHP
Torque: 340 Nm
Weight: 1.8 tonnes

Power to weight ratio: 83 BHP per tonne
Torque to weight ratio: 189 Nm per tonne

Toyota Fortuner 2.8L 4WD AT

Power: 177 BHP
Torque: 450 Nm
Weight: 2.14 tonnes

Power to weight ratio: 83 BHP per tonne
Torque to weight ratio: 210 Nm per tonne

Ford Endeavour 2.2L 2WD AT

Power: 160 BHP
Torque: 385 Nm
Weight: 2.24 tonnes

Power to weight ratio: 71 BHP per tonne
Torque to weight ratio: 172 Nm per tonne

Ford Endeavour 3.2L 4WD AT

Power: 200 BHP
Torque: 470 Nm
Weight: 2.4 tonnes

Power to weight ratio: 83 BHP per tonne
Torque to weight ratio: 196 Nm per tonne

[dhanushs]

Originally Posted by smartcat

Three things: 300 Nm torque, 9 speed AT and just 1.7 tonnes kerb weight. Looks like there is just 10 to 20% difference between CR-V and its competitors when we compare power to weight or torque to weight ratios.

99% of the users don't use outright 0-100 performance, or pedal to metal always. One will get a good picture of how the CRV behaves before driving it is by looking at the power and torque curve. The most important part is whats lying below the 2k rpm. Also, how linear that torque curve is so that you don't need to play around to be in the right gear while overtaking.

In the case of the 1.6 engine pulling the 1.7 tonnes, especially since they have given it 9 gears, I expect the low end to be just about OK and the power/torque tapering off towards the top end too. All the punch packed in the middle.

Remember the ecosport not being able to climb the hill? That's not lack of power, but lack of power where you want it.

In case of an SUV, there is no replacement to displacement.

[lamborghini]

Originally Posted by dhanushs

99% of the users don't use outright 0-100 performance, or pedal to metal always. One will get a good picture of how the CRV behaves before driving it is by looking at the power and torque curve. The most important part is whats lying below the 2k rpm. Also, how linear that torque curve is so that you don't need to play around to be in the right gear while overtaking.

Looking at the 40-100, and 20-80 times of the CRV Diesel compared to the Kodiaq (it's primary competitors, let's not bring full sized SUVs into this as a CRV buyer is not going to buy a tough as nails but uncomfortable Fortuner), it seems the engine is quite lag-free.

However, outright acceleration is a bummer, and I do think long highway drives and overtaking will have to be better thought out.

[4x4addict]

Originally Posted by nakul0888

Are we talking about sluggish performance at really top end speeds like 120 plus ?

I wish they hadn't compromised on the engine and out the global spec diesel engine in the CRV, but from what I read elsewhere, the power is acceptable.



However, I don't think the paper comparison with larger engines make sense, cause a larger engine like the Kodiac 2.0 or Fortuner 2.8 will have a much better bottom end torque without being dependent on the turbo.

[Guna]

Originally Posted by nakul0888

Ok so I’m confused here. Everyone including me got all worked up about the puny 1.6 single turbo in the CRV moaning about how it’s so slow and underpowered but the figures suggest it’s not doing that bad compared to the competition. In fact in roll on performance CRV comes ahead. So what’s the deal here? Are we talking about sluggish performance at really top end speeds like 120 plus ?

We should add the engine RPM while hitting these speeds. CRV will certainly have shorter gearing, which will make the engine to scream when others are attaining this speed in more relaxed manner.
I remember my experience with the 2nd generation Honda city. All the reviews indicated that even with 77 bhp engine, the car is not far off in terms of performance (compared to the peers and the previous generation car it replaced). It had respectable 0-60, 0-100 and 'in gear acceleration' figures. But on the road, it felt extremely sluggish and would get very boomy when you tried to go faster. I suspect, that would be the case with the new CRV (but may not be to that extent)

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by Guna

I suspect, that would be the case with the new CRV (but may not be to that extent)

Not to that extent at all, courtesy all of nine gear ratios to choose from! 9th gear is engaged above 140 kmph.

Sluggish at high speeds? Mostly yes. High rpm and boomy? Won't be.

[Guna]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Not to that extent at all, courtesy all of nine gear ratios to choose from! 9th gear is engaged above 140 kmph.

Is that so? I was under the impression that 9th gear ratio would be almost the same as what would be the 5th (or 6th in some) in other cars and there are few more intermediate ratios as well so that they are very close to each other.

[PrideRed]

Originally Posted by 4x4addict

I wish they hadn't compromised on the engine and out the global spec diesel engine in the CRV, but from what I read elsewhere, the power is acceptable.
However, I don't think the paper comparison with larger engines make sense, cause a larger engine like the Kodiac 2.0 or Fortuner 2.8 will have a much better bottom end torque without being dependent on the turbo.

For anyone who potters around city with 1-3 people, 120HP motor would perform just fine. Add 2 more people, some good luggage and the 1.6 mill will struggle big time. I drove Lodgy 110PS with 2 people on board and what a hoot it was to drive. Next time drove with 5 people and good luggage, what a paradigm shift, the car would need gear changes every now and then and was clearly running out of breathe.