By on January 22, 2010

What is the purpose of the Crosstour? I asked as I waited for my test car to be readied. Pause. Finally an answer, The Crosstour is now the high-end Accord. It is designed to compete with the Toyota Venza. Ah, I get it: monkey see monkey do. What better way to give the marque a kick in the shorts than to pinch an idea from the market leader. And so they did. Almost. Partly. Sort of.

The most complementary thing that can be said about the Crosstour is that it is an Accord Coupe stretched to accommodate a second pair of doors. Bumper to bumper, it embodies a sportiness that is entirely lacking in the entirely too practical Venza. That’s not to say that the Crosstour is a hardened ‘bahn burner. Or that it isn’t a practical mobile for the modern family. Let’s just say that the car has a little of that magic that made earlier generations of the Accord sedan a good deal more satisfying to drive than your average family car.

My crystal black pearl colored Accord Crosstour EX looks longer, lower and wider than the Venza. In this case, looks are deceiving. While it is almost 8 inches longer, Crosstour is in fact 2.3 inches taller. The proportions are, of course, drastically different. While the Venza is an upright and boxy wagon, the hood of the Crosstour is long and low followed by a steeply raked windshield and, lastly, a big thick bootie. In profile it casts a silhouette that is, dare I say it, not unlike the Porsche Panamera. If for no other reason, you can see the Crosstour’s sporting aspirations in the 12 inch brake rotors glinting between the spokes of the rear wheels. 

The penalties for the sleek exterior proportions are, of course, on the inside. With the rear seats upright, the cargo area is just 25.7 cu.ft. (51.3 cu.ft. with the seats folded). On paper that’s 4.4 cu.ft. smaller than Venza. In reality the difference is greater because much of the added cargo capacity created by the fastback design is an awkward space below the long sloping rear window. However, the space is infinitely more accessible than the pinched and restrictive sedan trunk because the entire rear window lifts up and out of the way.

Honda made the most of the rear space by replacing the spare tire wheel well with a commodious removable storage bin. The spare tire has been relocated up underneath the car in a retractable compartment, the bottom of which is streamlined to help undercarriage aerodynamics.

The dash is elegantly and intuitively laid out with outstanding ergonomics – with the exception of one grotesque flaw. The power outlet, auxiliary audio jack and USB port are located deep under the armrest at the back of the center console.

In a break from past Accord practice, the cabin is spooky quiet. Like a fastidious librarian, the Active Sound Control system utilizes the audio system to detect and shush unwanted noise frequencies before they reach your ears.

Only the sound of the high-strung 3.5 liter V6 engine is allowed to intrude for the entertainment of the driver. In classic Honda fashion, the drive train is tuned to keep the crankshaft whirling like a Dervish on crank, spending much of its time between 3500 and 4500 rpm in pedestrian stop and go traffic driving, about 500-800 rpms higher than the Toyota at any given speed. That means terrific responsiveness because you are almost always driving right in the meat of the engine’s power band. Additionally, the decisive 5-speed transmission tenaciously holds the correct gear when cornering.

To keep the inevitable fuel consumption of all of this revving in check, the engine is equipped with Variable Cylinder Management that deactivates two when cruising or three cylinders while coasting. At an estimated 18/27 mpg, Crosstour is 1 mpg worse than Venza in town but a tick better on the highway.

The ride quality of all of the new Accord models is outstanding, but the Crosstour gets the added benefit of sport tuning. More so than the drive train, these suspension tweaks have restored the trademark liveliness that Accord drivers have come to expect from Honda, but is missing from the lower trim models of the current generation. In sum, the car feels lighter and faster.

If cargo capacity were the only consideration the Toyota Venza would win hands down. However, the Crosstour offers greater-than-sedan utility while delivering superior handling and performance to any Camry, Venza, or current Accord sedan. Across the spectrum of options, the Crosstour cost four to five thousand dollars less than the comparably equipped Venza. When the Accord platform took on its current Giganto dimensions, it seemed that Honda gave up on giving its devotees a spirited driving experience. With the Crosstour the Honda Accord is back.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

74 Comments on “Comparison Review: Toyota Venza Versus Honda Crosstour: First Place: Honda Crosstour...”


  • avatar
    Mark MacInnis

    What we are dealing with here is not so much an Uber Accord as it is a smaller, faster, more efficient and slightly better looking Pilot…..with fewer chairs….

  • avatar
    TEXN3

    Not a bad vehicle…I’m guessing you didn’t test the AWD systems since you live in TX. Should have thrown in an Outback 3.6R for fun, since it lacks the CVT and is of similiar size.

  • avatar
    ash78

    the Active Sound Control system utilizes the audio system to detect and shush unwanted noise frequencies before they reach your ears.

    As something of a minimalist, I still think that’s pretty cool. A little bit of esoteric technology could probably take the place of 100# or more of sound deadening. Of course, I’m sure they used both in tandem here. But a nice idea!

    Too bad about the packaging. This is just another case of the US getting slighted on a proper wagon, yet again. If Honda hadn’t been so focused on the fastback styling, I think we might have a winner here. I’m always in the market for a reliable and fun wagon (tough combo there!), but don’t necessarily want to choose from Subie or Subie.

    • 0 avatar
      Garrick Jannene

      When I look at this thing, that is all I can think of. Why didn’t they just give us an Accord wagon instead of this ugly in-between?

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      So if this is 34k, what is the TSX wagon supposed to price at? 38k?

      Just for comparison’s sake, the Acura ZDX is 45.5k

    • 0 avatar
      Ernie

      Because then they’d need a reason to NOT have a stickshift . . .

      You know, because midsize fwd wagons w/stick are illegal in the US (the A3 is a fluke)

    • 0 avatar
      nutbags

      ernie – I’ve got an 09 VW Jetta Wagon with 5-speed stick. Took a while to find one but it was worth it.
      The Mrs. just leased a ’10 Accord Crosstour EX FWD and loves it. We actually went to look at the CRV but we walked past the Crosstour and questioned what it was. She was immediately in love. I enjoy driving it as well although the steering feel could use some work, very light, find myself making corrections mid-corner.

  • avatar

    Sorry, but the front end makes this car to ugly to consider. I have only seen one on the road in my area and its H badge is missing from the grill.

    Moreover, unless they upped the material quality in the Crosstour, when I was car shopping for a friend we looked at the Accord sedan and the interior was definitely a step down from the previous generation. Not bad by any means, but some details were skimped on. I was particularly disappointed that the trunk lid trim was removed.

  • avatar
    briancataldi

    They should have offered a 4 cyc to compete with the Venza at a lower price point ($3,395 difference from cheapest 4cyc Venza to 6cyc Crosstour). Only offering the 6 limits its appeal. A friend of mine took his mom out to look at both of these vehicles and even though he actually worked for Honda they bought the Venza because of the 4 cyc option…missed oppurtunity there if you ask me.

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      I agree with you. I’d rather have 4-cylinder economy and maintenance, even if it means 9 to 10 second 0-60s. It doesn’t seem like the VCM buys you all that much, either.

    • 0 avatar
      AccAzda

      The reason for not EVEN having a 4cycl as an option… is because the car is TOO damn heavy. I believe Crosstour comes in right or within 100lbs of 4000.

      Last time I checked.. stuffing a 4cycl into the current Accord sedan… doesnt make much sense either.. (not with the current gen anyway.)

      And since Venza is a Highlander / and a RX ntm Camry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Venza

      Its very existance is pointless.

    • 0 avatar
      Tosh

      I just rented an 09 Accord 4 cyl from Enterprise for a week, and I thought it was perky enough. Still too big and ugly. And this thing is even worse.

  • avatar
    dswilly

    I think the Crosstour needs more rear overhang.

  • avatar

    Sportiness is clearly in the eye of the beholder. I’m not seeing much sporty here. A shame, since if you’re going to take the functionality hit with a fastback design the result should at least look great. There has been an attractive largish hatch off a Honda platform before: the 1980s Sterling.

    Is the center stack different than the one in the Accord sedan? I personally didn’t find the large array of buttons in the sedan easy to use, but maybe they’ve fixed it.

    Apparently I need to drive one of these myself. Didn’t expect to hear the handling is sportier despite the higher center of gravity.

    Based on responses to TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey, both the Accord and Venza are quite reliabile. So a draw there.

    Not signed up to help with this survey? Details here:

    http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php

  • avatar
    bmoredlj

    I’ve seen this in person at the dealer and was a little put off by the over-sized grille, long overhangs, and overall awkward proportions. I asked myself, why sacrifice cargo and head space – therefore function – for form’s sake when the final form isn’t all that pretty?

    I will say though, your photos are fantastic; the best I’ve seen of the fairly un-photogenic Crosstour. The 3/4 view makes the big Honda look taut, trim, and ready to pounce, and the profile shot reveals a far more elegant, sensible design than Honda’s earlier photos suggested. Could the Crosstour be (slowly) growing on me?

    No, because it doesn’t look nearly as good in person as it does in these photos!

    • 0 avatar

      Must agree, great photos. As any oversized person will tell you, black helps disguise the mass.

      And good thing it doesn’t have the accessory roofrack. The one at my local dealer had said rack, and it makes the car look ten times worse–just when you didn’t think that was possible.

      Photo that once again looks much better than reality:

      http://automobiles.honda.com/images/2010/accord-crosstour/configurations/accessories/photos/UNDERBODY-SPOILER-KIT_mid.jpg

    • 0 avatar
      panzerfaust

      I agree. I saw one in white going down the street, and the only comment it got was ‘what the “f” was that?”

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    However, the space is infinitely more accessible than the pinched and restrictive sedan trunk because the entire rear window lifts up and out of the way

    It’s also infinitely easier to load and fits much larger objects than a flat-back like the Venza, especially with the hatch open. When I had a Saab 9-3, I loaded some pretty insane things into a cargo hold like that one (four trees, a queen mattress, a dining-room table). Both designs have their pros and cons, though it would be nice to see something like the Dodge Magnum: flat window and hinged well back into the roof.

    The dash is elegantly and intuitively laid out with outstanding ergonomics – with the exception of one grotesque flaw. The power outlet, auxiliary audio jack and USB port are located deep under the armrest at the back of the center console.

    I find this surprising. The Venza has tacky-looking but easy-to-pick-out-at-speed buttons. The Crosstour’s nicer looking set are much harder to pick out at a glance. This seems to be the case across both companies’ lines, saving the Fit and Insight.

    To keep the inevitable fuel consumption of all of this revving in check, the engine is equipped with Variable Cylinder Management that deactivates two when cruising or three cylinders while coasting. At an estimated 18/27 mpg, Crosstour is 1 mpg worse than Venza in town but a tick better on the highway.

    Part of that is probably the shape, too. Hatchbags have less drag, hence why Saabs, the Prius and the Insight all share the same shape. It would have been nice if Honda had offered a four-cyl, though, like Toyota does with the Venza.

  • avatar
    Disaster

    I looked at one of these parked inside Costco. Definitely a bit awkward looking posterior but what really got me was the sticker. $34,000 for an Accord hatchback?!?! For that price one could buy an Acura TSX…a Lexus ES 350…Volvo S80…a Hyundai Genesis. This is getting into Luxury car territory during the worst economic downturn since World War II. Straight away I can think of a few cars that I would cross shop and save a few grand on…like the Ford Edge, Hyundai Veracruz or the Subaru Outback.

    • 0 avatar
      carve

      Yeah- for that price, you could get an entry-level A4 Avant. That car is dead sexy, (better looking than the sedan), has one of the best interiors out there, has amazing handling, great power and torque, and the interior volume with the seats up is just a bit less, and with the seats folded down volume is almost dead-even with the Crosstour.

      The ONLY reason to opt for the CrossTour over the A4 Avant is if you’re learly of Audi reliability.

  • avatar
    Robert Schwartz

    “slightly better looking Pilot…”

    Au contraire, mon ami. The Pilot is less deformed, that this monstrosity, which does not make it pretty.

  • avatar
    carguy

    25 cubic feet of cargo space is not much for a vehicle that asks significant style sacrifices on the alter of practicality – particularly when the much more practical CR-V has nearly 36 cf and has the same seating capacity.

    Why not just make a more sporty version of the Accord (maybe with AWD) for those who like to drive and an Accord wagon for those who need cargo room?

    • 0 avatar
      sean362880

      Agreed, 25 cubic feet is miserable in a vehicle that was specifically designed for more cargo.

      You get 43 cubic feet in a Ford Flex (3rd row folded) for same price or cheaper, and it looks a lot better. And according to Baruth it’s got some get-up-and-go as well.

      http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/review-ford-flex-ecoboost/

  • avatar
    Hank

    If I don’t need a third row and want sport but am thinking Japanese fwd w/a smooth six and want to pay too much…I’d skip this and go Maxima. This thing’s still a question no one asked and an answer no one can justify.

  • avatar
    ash78

    While the recent fuel crunch drove a lot of US buying habits toward more Euro and Asian-style offerings (Fit, Smart, Yaris, etc), it’s nice to see we still have a penchant for vehicles that make the worst use of space for their footprint.

    I’ll give it high marks on efficiency, though. That’s quite a vehicle to get 27mpg with a V6 and that monstrous profile.

  • avatar
    Rod Panhard

    “Crosstour” appears to be the Japanese word for “Saab without the key on the tunnel.”

  • avatar
    ash78

    Does this all come down to CAFE desgination? Maybe the gurus can help me with that. Perhaps Honda might want to offer an Accord wagon, but would have to call it a “car” to the feds.

    Meanwhile, they offer a fairly efficient…whatever this is…and call it a “truck” (along with CR-V, Element, Ridgeline, and Pilot) and get a great big pat on the back for making such a fuel efficient line of trucks.

  • avatar

    Both Crosstour and Venza are too bloated for city driving. Can’t even imagine having to parallel park one of them. Something the size of Golf Wagon is plenty sufficient.

    • 0 avatar

      In this vein, what always striked me as odd was how lots of people nimbly drive their Rams, F-150s, and Sierverados around San Francisco.

    • 0 avatar
      fincar1

      Right on, Pete Zaitcev…I think one of the main reasons for the huge sales of the half-ton pickups for so many years is that they’ve been downright simple to drive as well as useful. It is true that the extra length of the long-cab versions doesn’t help in parallel-parking, or for that matter maneuvering in parking lots in general. We eat often at a restuarant that overlooks two small parking lots downhill toward the waterfront, and it’s always fun to watch people maneuver one of these long vehicles.

  • avatar
    educatordan

    Sir Mix A Lot, your ride has arrived.

    I think the biggest reason that the Accord Crosstour angers most of us here is that it rubs our face in the fact that you can’t get an Accord Wagon. Sorry I love station wagons, I don’t care who made them, what year they are, they intrigue me. I despise the SUV for killing the noble honest station wagon.

    • 0 avatar
      fincar1

      Dan, I believe that CAFE is what killed station wagons rather than SUV’s. The Big 3 found they could build SUV’s and get around CAFE restrictions because SUV’s are classed as trucks. There are still station wagons though – look at the Ford Flex. The only reason that isn’t called a station wagon is because there aren’t 2-door and 4-door sedans available with the same front clip…the term “station wagon” is passe even though the concept will never be, as there will always be a need for a passenger vehicle that can be adapted to carry more cargo than a sedan.

  • avatar
    richeffect

    I would like it more if there were a stickshift option. If it is supposed to be sporty, why not add a stick option? I’d also opt for the 4 cyl version as well, but I guess my tastes are not in line with the majority of Americans.

    Yes, I think it’s ugly but it wouldn’t be my reason for buying such a car. I think the aftermarket can help there somewhat.
    The 2011 Sienna will have a sport version with a quick ratio steering rack and stiffer suspension–and that has a real third row seat.
    Come to think of it, I think I’m a minivan man.

  • avatar
    mjz

    Saw this, and the even uglier sister car (Acura ZDX) at the Detroit Auto Show. First, the ZDX. It was stickered at a mind numbing $57,000!!! It is incredibly ugly, actually looks worse in person. The interior was simply impractical, and the awkward high door sill actually made it difficult to get in and out of the thing. Anyone stupid enough to buy this has more money than brains. Second, the Crosstour. At $36,000 (!), it was still wildly overpriced, but a bargain compared to the ZDX. It seemed a little easier to enter/exit than the Acura, with the sill being lower (perhaps because it was FWD vs AWD of ZDX). It was marginally more attractive than the Acura, but that is damning it with faint praise. Really, after seeing these two ugly ducklings, one has to really wonder WTF Honda is thinking. Seriously, between Toyota quality fiascos and Honda design disasters, the big two Japanese are floundering badly.

    • 0 avatar
      chrisgreencar

      Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. While I agree that the Crosstour is awkward looking, I think the ZDX is beautiful.

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      The ZDX is beautiful? From what angle? Looking directly from below, with a double blindfold and your eyes shut tight?

      People tell their kids not to look at the sun so they don’t damage their eyes. Hondas (and especially recent Acuras) should come with similar warnings.

  • avatar
    GrandCharles

    Still not gonna like that one…The Venza should have win for the looks and the 4 cylinder, this look like a (insert something really ugly here)

    • 0 avatar
      educatordan

      (insert something really ugly here)a horny Porsche Panamera (sp?) snuck up on your Vibe in the middle of the night, bing bang boom, 9 months later, out pops the Crosstour.

  • avatar
    JMII

    “The spare tire has been relocated up underneath the car in a retractable compartment, the bottom of which is streamlined to help undercarriage aerodynamics.”

    When is this practice going to become standard place? One of the reasons my current Passat gets such good mileage (aside from the turbo 4) is VW took the time to put in some undercarriage bits to make the bottom of the car as slippery as the top. With everyone chasing that last mpg maybe they should start to focus on air flow UNDER vehicles more especially CUVs that will never be taken off-road (most are FWD anyway).

    As for looks… the whole Accord line follows a pattern: coupe = nice, sedan = ugly as sin, wagon (aka CrossTour) = horrific. Its a steep downward slope. Honda’s have been getting uglier and heavier with each new release, but now with the CrossTour they have reached new lows.

  • avatar
    ohsnapback

    I don’t know what’s more grotesque; the looks or the prices of all of these vehicles.

    Seriously, is it the fact that Americans finance everything and reduce it down to a “monthly number” that they lose track of how badly they’re taking it up the stern so badly? (Not that this is keeping record numbers of them from defaulting on credit card bills, mortgages, auto loans, etc., or declaring bankruptcy).

    The economy is not “recovering” folks; it’s getting worse.

    Look for Hyundai to capitalize even more as Honda and Toyota charge increasingly ridiculous prices for unnecessary (and unnecessarily ugly) vehicles such as these.

    • 0 avatar

      My cars became more expensive when I switched to paying cash. And it makes sense, actually: the amount of interest I was paying over the life of loans was pushing 100%. Now I just sell some stock or other liquidity and put the cash down, buy twice much the car than before with the same outlay. So I am always suspicious when I see generalizations about the influence of credit.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      Pete,

      well chosen captive leases were a great way to obtain pricey cars on the cheap for quite some time. For Euro makes, combine this with 7-8% savings on Euro delivery, and almost anyone could drive an “expensive” car. Some finance Co.’s are now accepting 20-30% under originally stipulated residuals come lease end, taking a bath, as the CPO market for up market cars has slowed down.

      You also have to take into consideration stock market moves. Turning down 1.9% financing while relying on stock sales in March of last year was, at least as of now, a pretty expensive way to finance a car.

      In states like CA, on a lease, you only pay the 10% sales tax on the monthlies. If you buy outright, you pay on the whole amount, while not getting any portion returned when you go sell the car. While the buyer of the second hand car have to pay tax again on the residual. So, from a moral point of view, considering the greatest moral imperative for Californians is to starve Ahnold and his minions to death as best we can; no down, high residual leases ought to be our preferred choice. Second only to temporarily moving to Oregon for the car purchase.

  • avatar
    Canucknucklehead

    “Last time I checked.. stuffing a 4cycl into the current Accord sedan… doesnt make much sense either..”

    I own a 2009 Accord EX 5 speed manual with a 4 cylinder. There has not been a single situation since I bought the car that I have felt it lacking in power. This includes going up the Coquihalla Highway in summer with five people and all their baggage.

    In addition, I recently spent a week driving a Camry SE 4 cylinder automatic around Arizona. Even at high altitude, I never felt the need for a 6 cylinder.

    But to each their own.

  • avatar
    Steve Biro

    “The ride quality of all of the new Accord models is outstanding, but the Crosstour gets the added benefit of sport tuning. More so than the drive train, these suspension tweaks have restored the trademark liveliness that Accord drivers have come to expect from Honda, but is missing from the lower trim models of the current generation. In sum, the car feels lighter and faster.”

    This is interesting… I’m not saying you’re wrong but every other review of the Crosstour has indicated the suspension set up is the least sporty of all the current Accord models/trim levels.

    • 0 avatar
      William C Montgomery

      Steve,

      I just did a quick survey of some of the other review of the Crosstour (I try to avoid reading other reviews of a vehicle until mine is done so that I’m not biased by their opinions). Of those that drew direct comparisons to other Accords in Honda’s lineup, I found a variety of results. Some, like those I quote below, agree with me that the Crosstour is sportier than the sedans. Those that said that the Crosstour was a softer corner carver, like C&D, were testing the AWD variant of the Crosstour. I tested the standard FWD models of both the Venza and Crosstour for this comparison. Maybe that’s the difference.

      “The Crosstour’s ride is smooth and firm, firmer than the last Accord sedan we remember driving, with crisp responses to the steering input. The Crosstour feels relatively light on its feet compared to the Venza, with more precise steering and a sportier overall demeanor.” –Popular Mechanics

      “Realizing that it’s toting around an extra 300 pounds or so, engineers upgraded the Crosstour’s standard Accord brakes from single- to double-piston up front, with 11.7-inch discs fore and 12.0-inchers aft. Further alterations include model-specific shocks, springs and anti-roll bars. The changes work, and the ride and handling strikes an agreeable balance. In short, the Crosstour may offer a more sporting drive, but it’s plenty composed, too.” –Autoblog

  • avatar
    stuki

    From a pure car-as-sculpture point of view, I actually like a lot of Honda’s recent designs. Other than from the rear, where it looks like a cartoon car, I find the new TL with the beak, to be one of the best looking sedans on the road. And the MDX by far the best looking SUV. That new CR-Z thingy looks good, as well, although if I get a chance to test drive it, I will take it down the steepest hill in SF and see if I can stand on the brakes and do a stoppie. As well, out of all the new big grilles, I find Acura’s chrome beak by far the most visually attractive. Audis, Bimmers and the rest look about as graceful as a .45acp hollowpoint. Bright, flat chrome doesn’t exactly minimize the yuckiness of bug splatter, though…. Porsche does offer the Panamera in coffee brown for a reason.

    Anyway, I hardly consider myself much of an automotive aesthete. I neither spend the world of time in my garage looking at my car, nor make a point of tailgating mirror delivery trucks. After just spending a week in oh-so designy Santa Monica, I have to say it looks like the X6 has been quite a hit amongst the beautiful people that do pay attention to their car’s looks. Up here in geekland I hardly see the X6 at all, other than at Bimmer dealers, but down there they were everywhere, driven by folk who obviously prioritize car payments over calories in these recessionary times. So I can certainly see where Hondas designers are getting the idea that this kind of design has a market.

    Practically, flat, large opening trunks more than six foot long, are just the ticket for swallowing skis, obviating the need for a noisy and massively mileage zapping roof rack or top box. And a bit more ground clearance than an Audi Avant might not be so bad when the inevitable budget cutbacks reduces plowing frequency.

    The ZDX and the CT has about nothing in common, other than general profile and manufacturer. The ZDX is a squashed MDX, while the CT is a jacked up and swollen Accord. I haven’t seen the ZDX in person, but I’m sure it is a much wider and more imposing vehicle. Much more in the X6 vein, in other words. While the CT, in Bimmer terms, would be more like the GT.

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      @stuki, “The ZDX and the CT has about nothing in common, other than general profile and manufacturer. The ZDX is a squashed MDX, while the CT is a jacked up and swollen Accord.”

      The MDX is a jacked-up Accord in the first place, so that makes the ZDX a squashed, jacked-up Accord — that has been beaten with an ugly stick possibly even more so than the Crosstour.

      After Honda’s many graceful designs 10-20 years ago, I never would have guessed that they would eventually reach the nadir of automotive styling abomination.

  • avatar
    CV

    I read somewhere the turning radius of the CrossTour is 40 feet. Is that right? That seems more truck-like.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      That would be those big wheels. The Venza has a similar problem, especially versus the Sienna’s much tighter (eg, almost compact car-like).

      You want the bling? You pay for elsewhere.

  • avatar
    newfdawg

    So when do we get a real station wagon from Honda, instead of the Crosstour, a sort of not quite SUV, not quite CUV and not quite minivan? Back in the mid-nineties, Car and Driver commissioned a couple of Ford Taurus wagons in SHO form. Both vehicles had SHo fascia, engines and transmissions and interiors. They were very sharp looking wagons, one ended up in my hometown, I got to look at it; it was sharp. Let Honda build something like that, based on the Accord chassis with a four cylinder engine and I would give it serious consideration.

  • avatar
    Sammy Hagar

    If I want to drive a car that looks like a shoe, I’ll buy the original…the Infiniti FX. But since I don’t want to buy cars that look like shoes, I’ll say “meh” to Toyota and “meh” to Honda (especially at the $35K pricepoint).

    Look: All I freaking want is an easy-to-find Camry or Accord wagon. Not a CUV, but a wagon. Unfortunately, it’s easier to find an old woman living in a shoe-car than it is to find a Camry/Accord wagon in the color and options I want. Stupid…

  • avatar
    ravenchris

    These two pigs are going to drive up the price of lipstick.

  • avatar
    blue adidas

    In twenty years and we all look back, that these will be the Pinto / Vega of 2010. These are like Croc shoes… they may be practical. But they are nasty, ugly and unsexy vehicles that no one should wear.

  • avatar
    Kman

    Well, this review is a nice addition to the forming of my opinion on the Crosstour.

    I initially didn’t get this vehicle, what it was or what its purpose was. I finally saw it at the local auto show in Montreal yesterday, and, having just seen the new Outback, finally got the Crosstour: it is actually a caressed, stylized, and — according to this review — sporty version of the Outback. Pictures do NOT do it justice. I thought it — and still think it — ugly in pictures. In “the metal”, so to speak, it makes sense. It gives off the high-sedan look of the Outback, with more swoopiness, plenty of utility, and a car-like ride.

    Now that I read about its handling prowess, I say kudos to Honda. Well-done, and now I get it.

  • avatar

    I rather buy a nicely loaded 2010 Dodge Caravan with that dough.

  • avatar
    PennSt8

    I still don’t understand the appeal here. Having had the opportunity to check one of these out at the LA Auto Show, I was a bit perplexed at who/what would buy this vehicle. It’s ugly, the slopping roof compromises rear egress/ingress and the rear cargo hold doesn’t seem very usable for larger items.

  • avatar
    Mockingbird

    My brain can’t seem to formulate an opinion on the shape of this car. But I don’t get a good feeling here. I am still scratching my head for an answer. Somethings just aren’t proportioned right and it’s upsetting my brain. But I can’t put my finger on it.

    Had intended to test drive one, but decided not to because of those intrusive forward leaning head rest which seems to be Honda and Toyota norms these days.

    • 0 avatar
      AccAzda

      With a total disregard for style, design or purpose both vehicles:

      I believe there is actually a REASON for having a forward leaning headrest.

      Its PROBABLY to reduce the damage to your neck for whiplash. Its similar to an older Volvo design. Personally, I wouldn’t turn down a vehicle because of the headrest.. (knowing that its a incurring safety feature)

    • 0 avatar
      Litt

      I bought 2009 Honda Accord and didn’t realize how much the headrests leaned forward until AFTER I had driven it for a week or so. I was very frustrated because it was so uncomfortable.

      I ended up buying leather 2008 headrests off ebay and swapping them in. Works great and now it does not “push my head forward anymore”

  • avatar
    unleashed

    A good looking car…
    Would buy one if not for the insane price!

    What I don’t get is why Honda has abandoned the low-mid price hatch segment (because of their econobox perception… yeah, right) just to introduce the overpriced Crosstour as a high-end Accord?

    Where’s the logic here?

  • avatar
    StatisticalDolphin

    Today I saw a CT in the wild for the first time. Looks larger in person. Can’t decide if its the poor man’s Panamera, X6 or 5 Series GT. The negative response in these and other comments brings back memories of the hate that hatchbacks used to inspire. That’s what this category of vehicle is – the reinvention of the hatchback. Similar to the reinvention of the station wagon as the SUV and Minivan. All that is old is new again.

    • 0 avatar
      AccAzda

      Alright lets get this straight:
      I am not one to hate.. any specific kind of 3box car based vehicle (SUVS / CUVS as exceptions) cant KILL them with ENOUGH FIRE!

      The reasons why this damn thing is hated.

      1. Its a 4000lb vehicle stuffed with a 3.5-3.7ltr V6. Honda’s FIRST Accord that didn;t come STANDARD with a 4cycl. Car is TOO DAMN BIG.

      2. There is no versatility to the vehicle. Ya got more room in the trunk, of a standard Accord than with this.

      3. **Getting into FINE details** The angle of the hatch that cuts into the roof of the vehicle.. IS FAR too severe to actually benefit the vehicle in terms of holding.. more than the SEDAN. They could have easily pulled the trailing line further behind the 2nd row of passengers to connect to the hatch.

      4. The vehicle at Honda sits in a segment at its company surrounded by the RDX /CRV, the Pilot / MDX and Ody. There is no need for a vehicle of this size. Its doomed for failure.. by the concept of there is more of a SUVS / CUVS “choice”, than this… monstrosity.

      5. Honda could have EASILY have designed it for more utility. As included is the URL of what EVERYONE ON THE INTERNET, THAT FOLLOWS HONDA / CARS thought they’d be making.
      http://autoworld.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/honda-accord-cuv-2011-spy-img_2.jpg

      This.. BEAST clearly isn’t it, and there is no reason to buy one. Not Honda’s TOTAL LACK of engine development. Not Honda’s total lack of lightweight FUN TO DRIVE — see CAMRY for boring SHIT.

      6. Do ya want a HATCHBACK? See the GTI in 2 or 4dr form (VW also sells wagons of the Jetta and Passat ((but ya wouldn’t know it from the those who buy SUVS / CUVS))), see the Mazda 3 hatch, see the Impreza, ya could buy the CTS wagon, ya could buy a 2-3yr old Taurus X from Ford, or a 2-3yr old Mazda 6 wagon.
      I dont stand AGAINST HATCHES. I STAND FOR THEM, but the shit that this shit represents.. is shit.

      And that’s it.

    • 0 avatar
      Kman

      Hm, interesting perspective that I hadn’t considered: “The reinvention of the hatchback”.

      That’s a very good interpretation; indeed, as the station wagon/minivan/SUV evolution, though I’d split that in two:

      The Station Wagon begat the Minivan which begat the SUV.

  • avatar
    Mockingbird

    I would turn down a car with forward leaning headrest if this is so pronounced that it hurts to drive it! There are other alternatives where the forward canter is less pronounced.

  • avatar
    segar925

    I saw one of these on the road today and it was hideous, almost as ugly as the Pontiac Aztec. I was once a loyal Honda buyer, but Honda’s styling since 2003 has driven me to the competition and chances are I won’t be coming back. This car should get first place for the ugliest Accord that Honda has produced since 1976. Honda should fire their entire design staff.

  • avatar
    Veee8

    Quite possibly the ugliest car on the planet right now, and I love Hondas….its styling is repulsive – it looks like someone sat on the hood and kicked it in the ass, or vise versa…why not build a proper wagon? Or is that (wagon) such a stigma with North Americans that is sends them running to SUV’s, CUV’s, Cross overs or anything that makes them feel “cooler”.

    I applaud the TSX and CTS WAGONS for their sensibility compared to the last 15 years of pure automotive backward evolution known and the SUV and their derivatives….

    • 0 avatar
      Acc azda atch

      Sensibility….

      There is no sensibility.

      Both cars.. are designed to fail.

      Why..

      Look at the market they are SURROUNDED by.

      The SRX costs less than the CTS wagon.
      And the TSX is going to have a shitty motor.. with gutless power.. be sold for too much.. “when ya could buy the CUV for cheaper COMPLEX”

      And it is a complex.

      Witness why the Mazda6 hatch / wagon failed.

      Because… of its own market competition.

    • 0 avatar
      Veee8

      Baaaaa….designed to fail because North Americans don’t friggin’ get it…it’s a fast food fat ass culture and they love the treat of the week. 535Xi Touring makes more sense than any X3 X5 – even a used V8 S4 Avant is way cooler than a Q whatever…let the masses choose the common boring vehicles and I’ll gladly take the niche driving machines. Shhhh don’t pass it on….

  • avatar
    ixim

    [Posting better late than never] I wish I could find a picture of an early 1950′s Nash – the Crosstour’s butt is a clone of that. As in, ugly. Like the Nash, OK looking from the front. Unlike the Nash, you can’t fold the seats down to make a bed. And, like the Venza, much too big on the outside for the amount of interior space. Not so great on gas, either – no better than the much more useful Odyssey [dreaded minivan!]. Bigger than the Venza on the ouside; smaller on the inside – the Venza’s already less capacious than its smaller cousin, the RAV4. WWTT???? If it sells well, they thought of everything.

  • avatar
    ixim

    That was the Nash Ambassador. Just recalled.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States