[yogeshnagpal]

Whats wrong with Honda designing the exteriors ?

Front looks borrowed from the Range Rover Evoque and the rear looks borrowed from the Volvo XC60.

I found the outgoing gen CRV much better.


-Yogesh.

[Motored Mindset]

A very good review, worth the 5 stars that I've rated it! Though what makes for a signature TBHP review is the end section titled "The Small Yet Significant Things" - this section fundamentally differentiates the car being reviewed from its competitors on the nitty gritties. While you've surely highlighted these things - like the one touch rear seat fold down lever or the flip key within the review, a compilation at the end makes for informative reading. Because of this section in almost all TBHP reviews, I usually end up explaining these features of a car to a Sales Assistant instead of the other way round.

I recently saw this car at the Toronto Auto Show and was taken aback by how the most incremental improvements have made this a hugely better car. Simple things like reducing engine friction and a mild bump in power to Honda's ubiquitous 2.4 petrol workhorse make it competitive with the most modern NA engines. Space and thoughtfully engineered ergonomics have been maximized and the aesthetics have been worked on to reduce the edginess of the earlier model. What I'm not a fan of is the limited number of colours on offer. Did you manage to test the rear parking aid system at night, its crucial that the screen is usable when parking in the dark. With regard to Honda not bringing the 2.2 D-TEC engine to India earlier is because of concerns with fuel quality and a high sulphur content in Indian diesel (a flimsy reason) but I think they were waiting for the life-cycle of the 2.2 to end to introduce the next generation 2.2 EarthDreams in emerging markets.

[MaxTorque]

Great review Eddy as many others said, another ***** rated thread. The picture quality is too good and can be used even wall papers. A small doubt, which camera did you use for these snaps and what are all the image processing you have done?

The first three-four photos are excepationally good...

[Utopian]

Nice review. The prices have been the most welcome thing with the new CR-V. If only they could have provided a diesel.
The rear looks a bit out of place,a bit bulky. I liked the design of the alloys, though.

[DieselDelight]

Note from Mod: There are several spelling & grammatical errors in your posts. This negatively affects the board experience for other readers.

Kindly ensure that you proof-read your posts prior to submission. Also, it would be a good idea to use spell-checkers.

[vb-saan]

Excellent review Eddy. Thank you!

The CR-V always had some quirky elements, and this time it’s the rear-design. But overall I liked the looks of the new CR-V. Maybe they could have gone a bit less aggressive with the chrome add-ons.

Lack of diesel maybe a negative (or probably is the biggest negative aspect in this case), but good to see that even the base variant is pretty loaded with 6 airbags, ESP, leather seats, reverse camera etc.

Negatives – (1) The AVN variant is a bit of a joke with its steep pricing, and (2) No MT option for the 2.4L

Originally Posted by yogeshnagpal

Front looks borrowed from the Range Rover Evoque and the rear looks borrowed from the Volvo XC60.

Sorry, where is the similarity here with the Evoque?

[AVT]

Really a great review.
CR-V is one car which stands out boldly as an example of an "urban utility vehicle".
Surely there are better soft roaders which can do a fare bit of off roading stuff as compared to the honda. But none of them comes close to the driving dynamics of the CR-V. I was never a fan of it but this one has kind of blown me away by the way it looks!

And it looks more like the new ix generation hyundai SUVs, especially from the front.

What does CR-V stands for ? City Recreation Vehicle?!

[suhaas307]

Thank you very much for the review Eddy.

We were not too far off from finalizing on a replacement for our Civic. We'd shortlisted a range of cars, including the Laura 1.8 TSI and the Jetta 1.4 TSI. But when I'd heard that Honda has introduced the new CR-V @ 19.9 lakhs (ex-Delhi) I was chuffed! I assumed it would be the perfect replacement for our low-mileage / 6 year old Civic, given that it is the perfect mile-muncher. The 2.0 MT would serve us best.

After a few visits to the showroom, I began to spot some chinks in the armour.

- 170 mm ground-clearance? Really? What's the point in shelling out $$$ over and above the Civic's resale price if the CR-V isn't going to provide us with the advantages of owning a crossover?

- 25 lakhs OTR Bangalore was beginning to feel like a stretch. But with the arrival of new tax-provisions for SUVs as per this year's Budget, it might just be out of reach. Could someone throw some light on this?

At the end of the day, the CR-V will give us the same sort of mileage and provide the same sort of drivability that our Civic does. Of course, it's much more spacious than the Civic, and a notch above in terms of plushness, but is it worth the extra cash? I'm not sure..

For a whole lot more money, I'm not entirely sure if it's a 'whole-lot-more' of an upgrade.

From a regular person's perspective though, the CR-V is an amazing product. It looks good and feels great to be in. The design may not be to everyone's taste, but it is an appealing car that has presence. The petrol mill may not be the perfect motor for the recipe, but it's still a good car. If the monthly mileage is around 300 km and you're looking for a SUV, don't even bother with the ladder-frame diesel options out there. But if the running is more than 500 km a month, walk away immediately.

[Fountainheader]

I have the same flip keys on my Acura. After a year or so, they start rattling and it gets pretty irritating.

[yogeshnagpal]

Originally Posted by vb-san

Sorry, where is the similarity here with the Evoque?

Attachment 1059991

Ok - Sorry. I should have been more clear while posting. The head-lamp design seems to be inspired from the Evoque.


-Yogesh.

[Skyline GT-R]

CR-V is Crossover Runabout-Vehicle IIRC.

The Honda quality is showing but design looks so Hyundaish. With the slanting (H) fast becoming popular in the US, I expect next gen CR-V to be a fluidic design.

[dezrskb]

Originally Posted by GTO

Not really guys.

1. While petrol SUVs like the CR-V & Outlander give only 6 - 7 kpl in the city, diesel SUVs deliver 10 - 12 kpl. Remember, diesel engines are inherently more fuel efficient.

2. Thus, even if petrol & diesel ever cost the same in India, the petrol SUV will still cost 70 - 100% more to run. The diesel will also have more torque and a longer tank range.

I don't believe that diesel & petrol are going to cost the same anytime soon. Sure, the gap will narrow down, but it'll remain significant in the short to mid term.

I think your observations are correct, though off the topic, I am able to extract usually >20Kms/L on my long highway drives with my Skoda Laura 2.0 TDI MT confirmed both by tankful to tankful method as well as on board computer. I cant just imagine that happening with a petrol Laura even if I forget better torque.

[vinair]

Talk about just a badge doing all the talking!!

Trust me, if not for the Honda badge, all, almost everyone in the world would have written this model as the most 'Ugly Looking' SUV in the recent times!! I would still call it ugly, in spite of that badge!

Honda CR-V was desirable in its first generation avatar, looks like, Honda designers desperately wanted to stand out with this model and ended up creating a nonsense design which they know will be picked up anyways!

Curios to see the next generation CR-V!!

[noopster]

Nice review Ed!

I used to be a big fan of the CR-V. In fact when the second generation was launched a couple of friends and I went to the Honda showroom on Hosur Road and took a TD. It was of course way out of our budget then but we pretended that one of us was in the market. He eventually bought a City

The launch of genuine SUVs like the Fortuner and Pajero Sport since then in approximately the same price range has made the CR-V slightly redundant. I still think it would be a great option at around the same price as a Yeti. At current levels it is overpriced. Also any car that delivers 6 kmpl in standard driving conditions (works out to 13 Rs/km at today's petrol prices) is not value for money.

A diesel CR-V could totally change the picture, however. Wonder when Honda will launch that!

[satyaanveshi]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

- 25 lakhs OTR Bangalore was beginning to feel like a stretch. But with the arrival of new tax-provisions for SUVs as per this year's Budget, it might just be out of reach. Could someone throw some light on this?

The additional excise duty applies to vehicles for which ALL of the following are true:

1. length >= 4m
2. engine displacement >= 1,500 cc
3. GC >= 170 mm

Unless the rules are further tweaked, quite a few sedans such as the SX4 and the Corolla will end up with higher duties. OTOH, the Ertiga and the Duster will not have higher duties as their engines are below 1500cc. If the CRV has a GC that is even marginally below 170 mm (say 169 mm) it won't suffer the additional duty.