[PraNeel]

After reading the review, few things are clear:

1. The car is not a looker. In fact it is a quirky looking from front and back IMO.
2. Honda as usual has done a lot of cost cutting to maximize profits. There are several small nifty features missing, and especially at this cost it doesn't makes sense.
3. Honda's idiosyncrasies continue with step brotherly treatment to petrol.
4. This car will sell because of sunroof and long waiting list for Vitara Brezza. If Maruti reduces the waiting period and with upcoming Ecosport facelift, WR-V will face a tough time.

A premium car maker, shouldn't resort to cost cutting tactics. Honda should have played with it's strengths.

[abhi1881]

Excellent review!! and i must say, worth the wait. Cannot ask for more as far as detailing is concerned.

@Aditya: Regarding, the following comment

Originally Posted by Aditya

"Vibrations are felt not only on the clutch, but even on the accelerator. It's directly proportional to engine rpm. The experience takes away from the refinement you expect from a Honda. Additionally, there are vibrations felt on the gear lever as well."

How bad it is in terms of acceptability? I am driving Innova(Diesel) since last 7 years, is this something which is really a deal breaker/show stopper? On my 15 min test drive somehow i couldn't notice same, also the max speed i tried was 80km/h only.

[HammerHead]

Excellent review as always.
Just one question, is it worth going for WR-V by paying nearly INR 1.5L over Jazz?
Keeping aside cosmetic changes, aren't they 'same' cars?

[gatsby_great]

Great review! Main thing that honda, with WR-V, has gotten wrong is the pricing. In diesel top variant, it has very few points to score over competitively priced Ecosport titanium tdci, barring sunroof. In petrol, its 1.2 i-vtec has been universally bashed for poor driveability in cities; if we compare its base petrol model S-MT which is priced a whopping 1.76 lacs higher with baleno delta 1.2, the former loses out on mileage, driveability, lack of ACC, electrically folding mirrors. It can cannibalize jazz or br-v sales but not of the other companies.

[agambhandari]

Originally Posted by HammerHead

Excellent review as always.
Just one question, is it worth going for WR-V by paying nearly INR 1.5L over Jazz?
Keeping aside cosmetic changes, aren't they 'same' cars?

There's a bit more space, since the wheelbase is longer.
But the main reason would be the added ground clearance and the larger wheels. If your daily usage involves bad roads, then definitely the WRV.
And last but not least it's the need for an "SUV". A Brezza or EcoSport offers less space than a Jazz for people and Cargo, yet is popular with all people. It's the image and Honda is trying cashing in too.

[carmayogi]

Originally Posted by HammerHead

Excellent review as always.
Just one question, is it worth going for WR-V by paying nearly INR 1.5L over Jazz?
Keeping aside cosmetic changes, aren't they 'same' cars?

One has to agree with this comment. They are mechanically identical and fit in the same tax bracket. Heck - the Jazz even has magic seats at the back which are absent in the WR-V. I cannot imagine how there is 1.5 Lakh worth of extra material between the two cars. Further, it's not as though the Jazz is the bargain of its own segment - it's priced as high or higher than its competitors.

Aggressive positioning should have been done, ESPECIALLY given the cost cutting such as no fog lamp, flippy-switch IRVM, lack of cup holders/arm rest at the back, etc.

This car will be the Jazz of its segment - average sales with no real sign of success or failure.

[justwheels]

Tbhp reviews: class apart as always. The details covered are just amazingly in depth. Love to be part of this forum, period!

This me too attitude of car companies is a serious put off. The prime reason I love my Ecosport is that it's not "me too", it was built to be a compact SUV. Similar with a Brezza, though I am not a fan of it's quality. WRV though way better than the Active and the Cross's of the world, is not a match to the Ecosport and Brezza in the image and perception department. For sure what it carries over from Jazz is very good in terms of space and utility.

So who does Honda want to be buying this one, people in need of space and utility for city or those wanting SUV'ish characters. You would be needing both to buy a WRV in principle else you will end up buying a Jazz or Ecosport/Brezza/Creta. This reduces the number of prospective buyers in my opinion.

[NiInJa]

Excellent review as always !

Two major things that the car misses out on even in the top-end has me disappointed
1. No adjustable headrest: Besides being a safety concern in case of whiplash injury, it also restricts rear passengers from resting their heads properly, if they want to have a quick nap. There is no way to support the head which makes them rest it on the window (C pillar). The seat is lacking any kind of contours reminding me of my school bench

2. 60:40 split: One major advantage of having the split seats is you can stuff things like laptop/gym bags, small grocery/shopping bags in the boot without opening the big and heavy hatch (more useful in confined spaces), you can access the boot just by pulling one of the lever on the rear seat. I realized how useful it is in the Beat LT. It eliminates the need to open rear hatch by almost 90%

Also disappointing is the petrol engine, as rightly mentioned the 1.2 lacks urban driveability for average Joe's like me. You have to wring the 1.2L engine to get reasonable power even in case of Brio which is lighter than W-RV. I can only imagine how bad it must be getting in the W-RV. Office commutes can get really tiring as you have to play around with clutch and throttle.
The features given in diesel version vis-a-vis petrol is like Honda secretly telling us that the 1.2 L Petrol is a bad choice

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by agambhandari

There's a bit more space, since the wheelbase is longer.

Wheelbase is probably longer due to the revised suspension geometry to account for the increased ride height and larger wheels.

Space shouldn't be affected since the body shell from A pillar till C pillar seemed to be identical with the Jazz.

[SpeedyGonzalez]

Thank you for the detailed review. I had already booked the VX diesel variant and I'm waiting for the delivery.
For me the main upsetting thing is the lack of adjustable headrests, as I plan to use it for my family. Hopefully it isn't too much of a buzzkill as usually my mother and sister sits at the back. I would've bought the Jazz if it had better ground clearance and bigger wheels. Would like to disagree with NVH in the review, but this is actually a personal thing. It wasn't irritating for me and my father when we took the test drive.
Also, I know that WRV gets a lot of flak for its odd design and I do agree that from some angles it doesn't look good, but when you are seeing it in the flesh, it looks really good from most angles.

Cheers

[SmartCat]

Does not look it in the photos, but WR-V looks quite impressive (read as LARGE) on the road.

Wishlist

- 1.5 litre petrol engine
- CVT gearbox
- Rear adjustable headrests
- Magic seats
- 6 airbags
- all the features that diesel variant has

I'd pick such a WR-V over Honda City ZX because of compact size & better ground clearance.

Originally Posted by Aditya

As you can see the headrests are useless:

Aditya, what is your height?



Our 3rd gen Honda City too has fixed headrests, and it doesn't seem to be this bad.

Originally Posted by NiInJa

1. No adjustable headrest: Besides being a safety concern in case of whiplash injury,

Whiplash injury concern is more important than 'comfort' factor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkeFAZf7J9E

[vishy76]

Excellent review. Rating 5 stars.

The WR-V isn't really a looker from any angle. It looks exactly like a larger jazz. A family friend described it as A Jazz standing on a stool.

However, on a more serious note, the equipment list seems to be much better than the "premium" Jazz hatchback. On the negative side, this thing makes the Jazz's feature list look terribly sparse.

This is how the Jazz should have been equipped from day 1 by Honda. My wishlist for Honda:

- Launch a Jazz facelift and give it all these features (no way they can ignore this one)

- Launch a 1.5 I-vtec with a torque converter for the WR-V

- Standardise features for the petrol and diesel variants

- At least 4 airbags, please Honda! (The Ecosport has 6 of them)

- Projectors should have been a must. The Brezza gets them as well

- Jazz's Magic seats (Honda should capitalise on this USP)

- Leather wrapped steering

IMHO, its just a failure to monitor the competition. If this were launched before the Brezza, I would have had hopes with the WR-V. But nope, the Brezza is equally competent and it will also be interesting to see how the 1.0 Boosterjet does aginst the 1.2 I-vtec.

All in all, I would say Honda still has to work on it's portfolio and products alike. The WR-V is the most rounded product after the city, however, it doesn't look as proportionate as the Brezza does and nor does it have that 1.0 Ecoboost kind of an engine. Practicality is also missing I would say, without those magic seats.

It now seems like the car is in no man's territory or is it? We will let the numbers talk.

[a4anurag]

Originally Posted by smartcat

Aditya, what is your height?

Here you go, Quoting from the VW Ameo's review:

Competitors like the Amaze & Figo Aspire offer much better rear legroom. Though the roofline has been lowered, the headroom is still sufficient. At 5'10", I had about 1.5" of clearance

Should clear the doubt.

[Nohonking]

Excellently composed review by Aditya & dZired.

This is what Honda seems to have done to compose W-RV:

W-RV = 0.60 Jazz + 0.20 B-RV + 0.10 City + 0.10 New additions

Bold looks, ample space(both room + boot), composed ride quality, better ground clearance, high sitting and goodies such as sunroof, push button start/stop, projector headlamps, DRLs, cruise control etc. are what I see as the positives and are what going to have a footfall at the dealerships.

However, the overall effort by Honda still seems half-hearted only.
The biggest question, why the petrol sibling has been deprived of features shod in the oil burner? Further, the absence of a CVT variant IMO, Honda seems to be promoting Diesel over Gasoline.

- Same old i-vtec motor has been carried forward. Agree, it is a gem but nothing excites in it.
- Rear lamps are non-LEDs. A step down from Jazz(whose first lot is about to complete its 2 years next month).
- New designed dual tone alloy wheels are a welcome.
- HDMI port and the driver's armrest console(an addition to the Jazz) are a welcome as well.

Thanks!

[Waspune]

Thanks for yet another in - depth tbhp review. I have seen 3-4 WRVs in Pune and to me they look quite ugly, be it the chris and crosses on the sides, the rear tail light or the overdose of chrome.

It's yet another product by Honda that is an epitome of cost cutting which is really bad, given that the kind of brand equity it enjoys in India. This is where the Hyundai has done way better. I mean how can one omit rear adjustable head rests in such a premium offering?

The only USP it has is the sunroof and plethora of space + boot. But how good would this space be if 3 people in the back don't feel comfortable with the fixed head rests during long journeys?

The Jazz looks better, provides better value for the money and comes with those magic seats as well. The 1.5 ivtec that Honda gives even in Jazz in other markets must have found a place in the heavier WRV at least in the vx variant. Heck they plonked the 1.5 even in a not so premium Mobilio. God knows what's going on with Honda India's think tank!