[MaxTorque]

Originally Posted by satyaanveshi

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

One off topic question, if tomorrow a manuafacturer adds some fitments and makes the ground cleareance less than 170mm, will that particular product get relief from this additional duty..?

[Eddy]

Is the lack of torque so apparent in terms of city driving? I have a city 2010 and a toyota corolla 2005 and I see the difference in the torque in both them when it comes to driving in the city. Is the crv going to be cumbersome because of this in the City driving conditions ?

If you do not want mind-blowing performance, the CRV will not disappoint you on the road, especially the 2.4L.

Also my city being the lowest grade model is pretty noisy on the highway cause of the wind and tire noise. Is the crv's wind and tire noise on the highway on the verge of being intrusive? What highway speeds is the noise prevelant? 90 - 100, or above 120 etc?

That is something that you should definitely check out. The noise does start becoming intrusive at 90-100. Kinda takes the fun out of the refined engine

And what would be your realistic assumption of the fuel average for the 2.0 mt for both the city and the highway?

8 - 9 kmpl.

Is the steering really that vague at highway speeds that as you mentioned can be risky?

Its actually quite vague in the 2.0 litre variant. You would need to get used to it definitely, but not a deal breaker in my opinion !

[abs182]

^
Thanks for your precise and short feedback Eddy. I'm actually looking at the 2.0 MT. Now will have to again try and make up my mind on this car. It's really annoying not to be able to test drive it.

[ghostrider]

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.

Thank you for stating this. Even if Petrol and Diesel were to suddenly cost the same (they won't for the next 5 years at least) diesel cars will still be substantially cheaper to run because their engines are a lot less frugal when it comes to fuel consumption.

Anyway, coming back to the CR-V - I don't know why Honda even bothered launching this car, to be honest. A soft-roader / on-road SUV that has no butch credentials (unlike the Fortuner / Captiva), no diesel engine (unlike the Yeti, Fortuner, and Captiva) and gives you a whopping 6.8 kpl average fuel economy when your average speed's only been 64 kmh??? That's like 13 bucks a kilometer only in fuel costs.

They'll manage to sell a few units to the Honda faithful for the first couple of months and then the CRV's going to turn into the biggest sales dud of 2013. Unless they start doing massive corporate / fleet discounts Honda will struggle to sell more than 500 in the first year.

Originally Posted by Biraj

With Honda's fixation for petrol engines, they should look towards turbo charged petrol (some thing like T-jet or Ecoboost). The torque that 2.0 liter engine develops is less than what 1.4 liter T-jet develops in India.
A 1.8 turbo charged engine will give this car a different level of performance with refinement and efficiency. A better engine (turbo petrol or diesel) and ground clearance in range of 185-195 mm will make this a perfect choice for buyers in this segment.

Goood point - instead of a relatively large normally aspirated block they could've gone with a smaller block with some forced induction - say a 1.3L with a variable geometry turbo? That would have made it much more frugal at the pumps and probably more fun to drive. The problem with doing that, however, is then everyone would compare it to the imminent Ford Ecosport (very similar-sounding engine specs, wouldn't you say?) and I don't think Honda wants to fight that fight.

[Biraj]

Originally Posted by ghostrider

Goood point - instead of a relatively large normally aspirated block they could've gone with a smaller block with some forced induction - say a 1.3L with a variable geometry turbo? That would have made it much more frugal at the pumps and probably more fun to drive. The problem with doing that, however, is then everyone would compare it to the imminent Ford Ecosport (very similar-sounding engine specs, wouldn't you say?) and I don't think Honda wants to fight that fight.

I don't think Honda would be interested in competing with Duster/Ecosport with CR-V (though something based on Jazz would make a lot of sense). In India, CR-V is considered a proper SUV by many people (not compact SUV, thus the comparisons with T-forts and Pajero sports ) and for them anything that's large, doesn't have boot and has good road presence is a SUV. Now for the same segment, a SUV should have an engine with displacement that sounds large. 1-1.5l turbo charged would mean a modified engine from a hatchback. Here, I am talking about perception of general population not the well informed/read Team-bhpians (again, no rights or wrongs but to each his own). Thus, Honda should look at turbocharged 1.8l engine with power in range of 150-180 BHP and Torque in range of 280-320 Nm. I am sure it will be more efficient than the current engines. The way Honda prices its products, they must have more than enough elbow room to accommodate the change in engine without increasing the cost of car significantly.

If they get a diesel in the market, nothing like it.

[anjan_c2007]

A few pictures of the new CRV

[Jaggu]

A short and crisp first drive impression Eddy, thanks!

This is definitely better looking car compared to the outgoing model, Crv always had a very good drivers seat and i guess Honda has carried it forward and bettered it, atleast from the looks of it. It will be a good urban commuter and as always, women would just love it coz of the high seating and light controls.

Now at 20 Lakhs is this enough? Really dont think so, with local assembly they should have brought the OTR price under 20 Lakh to make any case in sales figures. But like the other Jap Toyota (read Camry), went ahead and pitched it as a premium car which will sell couple of thousands and then die a slow death. I guess both of these brands have a huge confidence issue fighting it out at this price tag with the European brands Just kidding!!!

One thing i like to defer in this review is the ownership experience. Yes its a Honda and it will run without quality issues, but as soon as it gathers some Kms and needs more attention, ownership experience will be nothing less than horror. Atleast here in BLR and from what i know of in Kerala also. Honda has one of the most arrogant and useless dealership networks. Esp with the churn of models every 2-3 years it will be a horror even finding parts for these low volume cars.

Trust me have Honda's since 2000! and loads have changed since the olden days.

[ghostrider]

Originally Posted by Biraj

I don't think Honda would be interested in competing with Duster/Ecosport with CR-V (though something based on Jazz would make a lot of sense). In India, CR-V is considered a proper SUV by many people (not compact SUV, thus the comparisons with T-forts and Pajero sports ) and for them anything that's large, doesn't have boot and has good road presence is a SUV. Now for the same segment, a SUV should have an engine with displacement that sounds large. 1-1.5l turbo charged would mean a modified engine from a hatchback. Here, I am talking about perception of general population not the well informed/read Team-bhpians (again, no rights or wrongs but to each his own). Thus, Honda should look at turbocharged 1.8l engine with power in range of 150-180 BHP and Torque in range of 280-320 Nm. I am sure it will be more efficient than the current engines. The way Honda prices its products, they must have more than enough elbow room to accommodate the change in engine without increasing the cost of car significantly.

If they get a diesel in the market, nothing like it.

That's what I think too - a 1.8L Turbhocharged option would be good, a diesel option would be great. Frankly I think Honda's a victim of their own arrogance in the Indian market - cars that are overpriced for what they offer and no sensitivity to what's important in the Indian context. When they finally wake up (like the price corrections to the City and Jazz) it's usually too late.

[DieselDelight]

Excellent review as always. There is sudden spurt in SUV market and expected to continue.
It seems honda is still relying on diesel de-regulation, which may not happen so easily.
There is always a discussion about petrol vs diesel, even in 20L segment. At least I would avoid buying petrol SUV ,even in this price range.

[suhaas307]

Originally Posted by satyaanveshi

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

Thanks. �� I'm aware of the new provisions but what's unclear to me is:

- The CR-V's ground clearance is exactly 170 mm so will the tax hike for SUVs apply?

- If yes, then what's the price of the car now?

[Mohan Mathew A]

Originally Posted by GTO

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.

Although petrol ideally should cost less than diesel because of the higher refining cost of diesel, the taxes are quite high on petrol compared to diesel and so even if the entire subsidy is done away with, petrol will still be more expensive than diesel unless the tax structure is majorly altered which i don't see happening anytime in the near horizon. I am aware of the maintenance cost argument against diesel. has there been any analysis done on the forum on how maintenance cost differs over a period of 5 years of the same model (i have taken 5 years so that there is sufficient time out of warranty).

My apologies for going

I have been quite surprised by the decision by honda to bring the new CRV. I don't think it will take off without a diesel motor. But maybe honda will prove me wrong.

[abs182]

One thing i like to defer in this review is the ownership experience. Yes its a Honda and it will run without quality issues, but as soon as it gathers some Kms and needs more attention, ownership experience will be nothing less than horror. Atleast here in BLR and from what i know of in Kerala also. Honda has one of the most arrogant and useless dealership networks. Esp with the churn of models every 2-3 years it will be a horror even finding parts for these low volume cars.

Trust me have Honda's since 2000! and loads have changed since the olden days.

This is precisely the reason for which I've changed my mind before booking it. The dealer guys told me they have a target of selling only 4 or 5 per year in our city ! with such kind of numbers it would be no surprise if the car's regular upkeep becomes a problem after a few years as I generally keep my cars for more than 5 yrs. Also you point of Honda giving problems after they become old is in a way a revelation for me as that's the 1st time I have heard someone saying it. But you're right in speculating the long term ease in keeping this car as far as the ASC and spare parts concerned.

[agambhandari]

One thing i like to defer in this review is the ownership experience. Yes its a Honda and it will run without quality issues, but as soon as it gathers some Kms and needs more attention, ownership experience will be nothing less than horror. Atleast here in BLR and from what i know of in Kerala also. Honda has one of the most arrogant and useless dealership networks. Esp with the churn of models every 2-3 years it will be a horror even finding parts for these low volume cars.

Trust me have Honda's since 2000! and loads have changed since the olden days.[/quote]

This is precisely the reason for which I've changed my mind before booking it. The dealer guys told me they have a target of selling only 4 or 5 per year in our city ! with such kind of numbers it would be no surprise if the car's regular upkeep becomes a problem after a few years as I generally keep my cars for more than 5 yrs. Also you point of Honda giving problems after they become old is in a way a revelation for me as that's the 1st time I have heard someone saying it. But you're right in speculating the long term ease in keeping this car as far as the ASC and spare parts concerned.[/quote]

I believe Honda has one of the best A.S.S. the only downside to owning a Honda is the relatively higher cost of spare parts.
I had Honda City from Jan 2005 to Jun 2012 and it never caused me any big problem in the 67000 kms that my family used. This is in line with the General Perception of Honda all over the country and even on team-bhp.

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by abs182

Also you point of Honda giving problems after they become old is in a way a revelation for me as that's the 1st time I have heard someone saying it.

This is true for any car isn't it?

But these kind of top end models which are designed keeping Japan, USA and Europe in mind as primary market failure of some parts are more as kms climb. Typically problem areas would be suspension and associated parts, mind you they are expensive since it will be an imported part

Another huge problem is resale, petrol, low volume model, low FE car = Pathetic resale. Very good thing if you want to pick a used piece, bad for the first owner.

[abs182]

^
Well to be honest with you I'm at the wits end about this decision of replacing my Corolla with. Nothing seems to appeal and fit my requirements. I need long term durability like my corolla itself which will be 7.5 yrs soon and I also need a proper upgrade as the car will be 60% to 70% chauffeur driven for my dad and rest by me and my wife.

But that's a dilemma for another thread. Thanks for your inputs though. Have almost ruled out the CRV now.