By on July 23, 2014

450x299x2012-Honda-CR-V_04-550x366-450x299.jpg.pagespeed.ic.maBjGB5e2J

The last word in functional, utilitarian crossovers will now move even further towards the middle of the road, as the Honda CR-V adopts a CVT for its mid-cycle refresh.

Replacing the outdated 5-speed automatic, the CVT gearbox is, by our own EIC’s admission, a fantastic transmission. Furthermore, nobody buying the CR-V will know the difference, or care enough about it. The bland, practical formula that Honda appears to have perfected has made the CR-V the top-selling crossover for years and years. Don’t expect that to change any time soon.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

78 Comments on “2015 Honda CR-V Adopts CVT...”


  • avatar
    jrasero23

    Typical Honda, when everyone is turbo charging they go with boring moaning CVT engines. A course this will give them best in glass MPG for no hybrid models, but they took a boring crossover and made it even less exciting. They should make SI/R type CR-V and bring the old RDX turbo charged engine back, but I know there is a 1% chance of this ever happening since Honda has now become the people’s choice car brand and not the car enthusiast car brand it used to be.

    • 0 avatar
      Zykotec

      In my opinion, if you need more than 5 gears, you should just go CVT right away, but I do agree that they should make a special version of the CR-V. Especially since they allready sell like hotcakes anyway, there is bound to be a large enough market to actually make money on it, even if you don’t include the downtrickle/’halo-car’ effect.
      All the parts are already available in the Honda/Acura parts bin.

    • 0 avatar
      Toad

      ” They should make SI/R type CR-V and bring the old RDX turbo charged engine back”

      Honda owns this market, and they know their customers. Honda knows that the market for a high performance CRV is as about as large has it is for a high performance mail jeep. Who wants to drive a Prelude on stilts?

      The CRV does what it does extremely well, and now it will do it a little better. Hopefully the money Honda prints selling the CRV can be used to engineer some fun back into more appropriate vehicles (or the entire Acura lineup).

    • 0 avatar
      Sanman111

      Will never happen. Any gain in foot traffic gained by such a model would be more than cancelled out if there is any drop in CR reliability ratings as CR doe not split recs between subtypes of the same model and Honda will not endanger that on this car.

      What I would love is a reliable version of the Jetta sportwagon/goldf tdo 4 motion with DSG. My perfect DD.

    • 0 avatar
      stryker1

      Recently bought a 2014 Accord with the CVT. It’s a great transmission, and I wouldn’t describe it as boring. In Sport mode that thing really goes for it. It almost becomes a different car.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      Honda’s CVT is better, more responsive than most automatics out there.

    • 0 avatar

      “Moaning” means you haven’t driven the Honda CVT.

      Nissan’s CVT moans, Honda’s doesn’t.

    • 0 avatar
      HerrKaLeun

      If you want a more powerful Honda, that is called Acura.

      Maybe they would sell 1000 of those beefed up CRV, but for that they gave up the lean production and distribution of 300000 normal CRV they sell with one engine, transmission and 3 trim levels. Hardly an economic case not even accounting for testing, certification and marketing.

      Admit it, you wouldn’t buy it anyway… you just make some internet comments like the diesel wagon crows that only buy 10 year old cars anyway.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        LOL! I’m waiting for America’s best selling vehicle, the F150, to come out with a CVT!

        I’m with Toad on this one. This CR-V will continue to sell well because the vast majority of buyers won’t care about the type of tranny it has, as long as it is reliable and long lasting.

        But it does bring up another question posed by v8corvairpickup, and that is if this CR-V can be towed behind an RV.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      At least in the Accord, the Honda CVT mimics a conventional automatic under part throttle acceleration. It shifts through a series of discrete gear ratios with engine rpm sounding like gears connect the engine to the wheels. I’m more concerned that CVTs cost roughly $4000 to replace vs. roughly $2000 to rebuild a conventional automatic.

      • 0 avatar
        HerrKaLeun

        How did you get that number? Did you already buy a 2015CRV and had to replace the CVT out of warranty? Or do you just make up numbers?

      • 0 avatar
        Occam

        There is a lot that could be done with CVTs that would set enthusiast hearts aflutter.

        1. Traditional clutch in place of a fluid torque converter. Give the throttle response the crispness of a manual or DCT.

        2. The ability to hold a ratio at the touch of a button.

        3. Since flappy-paddles are shifting through artificial ratios, you could have multiple settings, and even customizable profiles – the transmissions themselves are capable of an incredible range of ratios – imagine if changing from a 5 speed wide spaced pattern, 8 speed close ratio pattern, or even the equivalent of changing the final drive ratio were as simple as changing menu settings?

    • 0 avatar
      Dave O

      If Honda decides to put the CVT in the 2015 CRV, that will kill some of their dedicated market. Those of us that pull the CRV behind our motorhomes–4 down, will have to buy some other brand since a CVT can’t be towed 4 down.

      Dave O

  • avatar
    alsorl

    The accord CVT is not that bad. So maybe with a new transmission they get better mpgs out if the old school 4cyl technology.

  • avatar
    seth1065

    Much ado about nothing , this is the way of the auto world , turbo 4s rather than V6 and CVT rather than reg transmissions, this is the way of the world today

  • avatar
    Sweet Fancy Moses

    “The bland, practical formula that Honda appears to have perfected”

    Honestly, when my wife and I bought a 2012 CR-V two years ago, it was for this reason exactly that I jumped on board her pick. With a baby on the way, I wanted a practical commuting appliance that provided Mum & babe safe, comfortable and reliable transport through rain, shine and (sideways) snow along South Ontario’s Lake Huron coast.

    Two years on, I’m glad we went with it. It may not be the newest, sparkliest drive train offered; but the 2.5L 4-cyl with the Honda’s 5-speed transmission has provided plenty of oomph for grocery getting and family hauling, and the fuel economy has been rather surprising.

    • 0 avatar
      dsd

      My wife is driving a 2012 for similar reasons. It came down between the CRV and the Mazda CX-5. While I am a mazda fanboy, she thought it was under powered and the transmission was slow to kick down.

      The CRV has been a great vehicle and we’ve been getting pretty good MPG’s considering it’s size and shape. It’s mileage is comparable to our 08 accord. Who says the 5 speed is “out dated?” My experience with 6+ speed vehicles is the transmission spends more time shifting than is really necessary. For vehicles that rarely go beyond 80 MPH, I’d say that 5 speeds is plenty.

      • 0 avatar
        Zykotec

        As someone reasonably new to autos, my biggest problem with my CR’V’s auto is that it’s probably geared for economy in a country that doesn’t have Norways (mostly) 55mph speed limits… I can barely use 5th gear legally, unless there’s a downhill or tailwind, which in turn means 2nd and 3rd gear is spaced just a tiny bit too far apart for a comfortable accelleration at lower speeds. Like I have said earlier, if you need more than 5 gears, the only reason to not go CVT is bragging rights.

      • 0 avatar
        hreardon

        Bingo. My wife made the same decision for the same reason on a 2012 CRV EX AWD and she couldn’t be happier.

        My two complaints about the car are: fuel economy is mediocre and it could use a bit more sound deadening material.

        Otherwise, great car. She’ll likely lease one of these new 2015s come a year from now when her lease is up.

    • 0 avatar
      tuffjuff

      @Sweet, Fanciful Moses

      + 1,000 internets to you for the FFP reference, good sir.

      While I appreciate where you are coming from – I, too, will be buying my new vehicle in the coming year or two, based primarily on how kid/family friendly it will be – my argument would be that there are a dozen or more vehicles which match the description you have just provided. I guess this news post bums me out because while I haven’t tried the newer CVTs, the thought of killing off the smooth 6 speeds the mainstream has just recently become accustomed to, offends me.

      • 0 avatar
        Sweet Fancy Moses

        I left out one guilty admission: despite also being a Mazda fan, I agreed to the CR-V because the only option offered was a naturally aspirated 4-cyl. Many of the other rides we cross-shopped offered a turbo-4 or NA-6, but for once I locked away any desire for power and focussed purely on keeping my wife happy… she expects that the next vehicle to join the CR-V will address towing/hauling/POWAH requirements.

    • 0 avatar
      rockets

      When we had to replace our (pitifully) beat up Odyssey for my wife this spring and decided to downsize, the CX5 was my first choice, the CRV second, and the Forester 3rd. Surprise to me, she liked the latter the best and bought one. I am surprised at its mileage too: after 2000 miles, a rather dismal 22.2 in admittedly mostly suburb driving (rated at 25/32, I believe). She didn’t want another CX5 – I drive the Sport FWD manual – fun, though a dearth of torque and a bit slow, but with great mpg), but I really wanted the Honda for her. The deciding factor against the CRV were smallish doors. In the Forester her 90 yr old parents can just “fall in” and she likes the peppiness of the car…and handling and maneuverability. The CVT in the Subie is “OK”…hopefully the oil consumption issue does not affect the ’15 model (wishful thinking I’m sure).

      • 0 avatar
        Giltibo

        !@#$% THE CVT. THE CR-V NEEDS A 6MT!!!!!!!

        My wife used to own a 2003 CR-V (5MT). We loved the darn thing to pieces. In 2011, she wanted a new vehicle and we test-drove a CRV, but with the auto, the thing was completely gutless. So she went for a Mazda 5GT with a 6MT (Big Mistake – the thing feels like an old car after barely 2 1/2 years / 40 000km and drinks like a V6!)

        The 6MT exists for the CR-V (In the UK model) so it’s possible to put a MT in the vehicle for those who want it. They’ve built small-run cars before (CSX Type S, 9G Accord Touring with 6MT for the Canadian market for example) so WHY?

  • avatar
    FormerFF

    I wonder if this will further diminish its already wimpy towing capacity.

    • 0 avatar
      Sweet Fancy Moses

      In truth, the reason why vehicle #2 (aka: Dad’s ride) is soon to be a full-size pick-up.
      While Mum is at the grocery store, Dad is at the lumber yard :)

    • 0 avatar
      Thatkat09

      It shouldnt seeing as how neither the Civic or Accord had their ratings decreased when Honda put CVTs in them.

      • 0 avatar
        FormerFF

        From what I can tell from Honda’s web site, both the Civic and Accord have a towing capacity of zero pounds, so I don’t suppose it can decrease.

        My wife was shopping for a three row crossover last fall. Once of the finalists was the Honda Pilot. Once of the reasons we didn’t get it is we may be wanting a boat during the time where we would have her car, and the 2WD Pilot only has a 2000 lb. towing capacity. Apparently, Honda’s policy on customers needing to tow is to send them to a different maker.

        • 0 avatar
          Car Ramrod

          Wow, only 2,00 lbs? Our 05 Pilot (4WD mandatory that year) was rated at 3500 lbs, but if you wanted to add a hitch and keep your warranty it was required that you buy Honda’s extended tranny cooler and HD power steering pump. It was out of warranty, so I didn’t.

          We towed 2 jet skis over 900 miles– weight was probably about 2100 lbs. Nothing exploded, but it was hard to maintain speed even on the flats, and we hardly ever saw 5th gear.

          • 0 avatar
            FormerFF

            3500 lbs was what I would have expected. We wound up with an Explorer that came with a factory tow package rated at 5000 lbs.

            We had an Odyssey before that, it was rated at 3500 lbs.

        • 0 avatar
          Thatkat09

          Im almost positive both are rated at 1000 pounds.

        • 0 avatar
          TEXN3

          4WD version can tow 4500.

    • 0 avatar
      tankinbeans

      Can somebody explain to me the tow rating system that is being used? My friend has a Jetta that he’s been told will tow up to 2,000 pounds (if he stays out of 4th and 5th – double overdrive), while my Escape – base spec 2.5 – is only rated 1,500 pounds (while the top spec SE with 2.0EB is rated 3,500).

      I never really look at towing capacity because it’s not something I do often enough where the occasional rental wouldn’t suffice.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        You’ll need a lawyer to figure it out.

      • 0 avatar
        FormerFF

        It’s provided by the carmaker, and should be in your owner’s manual. I assume each model is evaluated by the maker’s engineering staff.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          Strike engineering staff and replace with “legal team.”

          • 0 avatar
            Zykotec

            Considering the Euro CRV is allowed to tow more than 3000 pounds (depending on model) I’d say it’s probably the legal team. It’s recommended to stay out of 4th and 5th in my manual ,if you do heavy towing. Mine has the 150hp R20 engine btw, we don’t get the K24 here.

        • 0 avatar
          FormerFF

          If you’re required to stay in 3rd gear on the highway while towing, maybe it’s a good thing your speed limits are low.

          • 0 avatar
            Zykotec

            Double overdrive transmission. The wind and road noise will probably still drown out the engine noise at 70mph, but you’re not allowed to tow anything at more than 55mph here anyway…

      • 0 avatar

        I think it is because the Escape is a car that is already “towing” all the extra stuff needed to jack it up and make it look more like a truck.

        I am an average sized guy. If I were to put on a costume to be the size and shape of a young Hulk Hogan, my I would be able to carry less lumber than I would in normal clothes, and I would not be able to carry nearly as much as the Hulkster.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Except that the car version of the Escape isn’t rated to tow at all.

          3500 lbs is a pretty decent tow rating on a small CUV. Name another compact car or sedan that has a higher rating in the US. Since the Liberty went away, I think the Escape has the highest capacity.

          Also, don’t tow with a VW Jetta TDI DSG. It will void the warranty (at least in ‘Merica).

      • 0 avatar
        wumpus

        The EU rating is what you can tow if you are willing to deal with the acceleration of a tired 1973 Beetle. The US rating is what you can tow without having to press on the gas more than an ounce over driving without it.

        Presumably whoever is in charge of tow ratings wants to sell more SUVs and pickups. Then again, EU roads often *have* cars with engines sized like ’73 beetles, although with modern engines presumably making up for the modern weight.

        • 0 avatar
          Zykotec

          They still make insanely slow cars for people with no money, that still want to look like they can afford a new car. (seriously, a guy at work just bought a nicely used ’07 Audi A4 Sportline, 1.6 with 102 ponies…
          Tow rates here don’t care about what engine you have, it’s more about the sturdiness of the car, suspension and brakes. (offcourse, more powerful cars usually have better brakes etc.)
          Actually, Honda has traditionally struggled here because of a lack of small engines…

  • avatar
    v8corvairpickup

    There goes one of the most popular RV tow cars, lost to the CVT.

    • 0 avatar
      tuffjuff

      @v8cp

      Blame it on Honda’s inability to acknowledge that any brand but Acura should be able to get anything higher end than a 5 speed.

      • 0 avatar
        Car Ramrod

        The Odyssey gets the 6-speed standard now, though it was part of a pricey option pack from 11 to 13. I wonder why they don’t sell an Acura version of it.

    • 0 avatar
      Thatkat09

      Towing capacity didnt decrease for the Accord or Civic when they switched to a CVT. Why would the CR-V be any diffrent?

    • 0 avatar

      I don’t think the flat tow market is big enough to matter to any car maker. It’s not a market driver but rather an afterthought.

      • 0 avatar
        Zykotec

        Camping/caravaning is still quite big many places in Europe (especially here in Norway) but as we buy a few hundred CR-V’s every year, I guess the American market share is quite a bit more important than the Norwegian one… Over here you can still get it with a 250lbs/ft diesel and a 6 speed manual though.

        • 0 avatar
          hgrunt

          How do the prices compare between the petrol and diesel versions of the CR-V? And how do diesel vs petrol versions compare in the context of taxes and fuel cost?

          • 0 avatar
            Zykotec

            You can get the smaller 120 hp 1.6 diesel, as a fwd, very cheap, but as a 4wd, the diesel(2.2, vs 2.0 gas) cost $3k more as a manual and 8k more as an auto (there’s huge difference in torque to say the least)
            The diesel will cost maybe 2/3rds of the gas version to run, but with slighlty higher cost of servicing, and some fear of unreliability (diesel particle filters are expensive to clean or replace, and it has a dual mass flywheel, + all the extra torque working on the drivetrain, and both turbos and particle filters in general don’t like lots of short distance/cold engine driving)
            All in all, you will save lots of money if you can handle the noise, and it will pull a train up a hill…

  • avatar
    segfault

    Is keyless ignition part of the mid-model correction on the CR-V?

  • avatar
    turboprius

    My parents actually wanted a CVT when they got their RAV4 a couple years ago, since they enjoyed it on the Rogue so much. The CVT was a big plus factor for them in the Outlander, but the lack of power and uncertainty of Mitsubishi’s future guided us to a RAV4.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    Saying that nobody that buys a new CR-V knows about transmissions is extremely arrogant.

    • 0 avatar
      Toad

      But fairly accurate. I would argue that the vast majority of CRV buyers don’t know or care what Honda uses for a transmission as long as it works well and meets their reliability expectations.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “The bland, practical formula that Honda appears to have perfected has made the CR-V the top-selling crossover for years and years. Don’t expect that to change any time soon.”

    Unless the CVT starts blowing up.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      What is this, 1998?

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Nissan CVTs were blowing up as recently as six years ago, and Ford Five Hundrend’s initial CVT launch was a disaster.

        Here’s a more recent link.

        http://www.autoblog.com/2013/12/02/nissan-cvt-jatco-problems-ghosn/

        • 0 avatar
          TEXN3

          How is that relevant to the CRV? Honda has been doing CVT transaxles since the mid 90s with the Civic HX and those were dead reliable. At that time, only Audi had a CVT on the market (fwd A6). The new Accord has an excellent CVT, rather had that than the 5AT in our Accord (which does have an intelligent shift logic).

  • avatar
    Occam

    As someone who just (last night) completed a 2500 mile road trip in my wife’s CVT-equipped Nissan, I fail to see why this is such a terrrible thing.

    10 times of out 10, if given the choice between a manual and a PRND lever from my great-aunt’s cutlass, I’m taking the manual. If I can’t have a manual, a dual-clutch box with flappy paddles will do. If neither is available, just give me a CVT and let me skip the gear-change jolts and unpredictable downshifts and upshifts.

    The CVT is worlds better than an automatic as far as the driver experience goes – if you’re not going to let me shift the gears myself, at least make the experience unintrusive. Letting it run up to peak-HP and hold it until you reach the desired speed is the most efficient way to wring every ounce of power out of the thing.

    As an aside, I’ve always wanted to drive a CVT with a manual mode. Just a sliding lever like the throttle in a jet that you could slowly slide from short to tall ratios!

    • 0 avatar

      Actually prop governor lever works as described, except that most only use it in 2 positions: full-forward and cruise rpm.

    • 0 avatar
      Tinker

      So when you step on the gas, you get more noise (IE Noise goes to MAX Vol), and that’s fine with you?

      • 0 avatar
        Occam

        It’s the exact same thing that happens in an Automatic, except without the sudden jolt as the transmission finds another gear. I can’t tell where the transmission itself is any louder, and while staying at the max-HP sweet spot can be loud, it’s a bit quicker than waiting for the transmission’s stunted logic to find the right gears.

        I’d rather have a manual, as I’m not disabled or drawing a pension, and an automatic just seems silly unless you have a blue handicapped plackard hanging from the mirror, but if I must suffer it, let me suffer without a traditional autobox.

  • avatar
    Offbeat Oddity

    “The bland, practical formula that Honda appears to have perfected”

    I’ve been reading a lot about how the CR-Vs are bland and boring, but I don’t feel that way about my 2011 CR-V. It has the Honda-sharp steering and firm suspension that make it drive smaller than it is, plus the engine is a gem (if underpowered). It’s not much different than my 2007 Accord was to drive in most driving situations. It goes to show that in addition to the reviews, you have to test drive the vehicles yourself because prior to my test drive, I was ready to write the CR-V off. I’m very glad I didn’t.

    The CVT certainly fixes one of the CR-V’s main shortcomings, so it’s a very welcome change. I would’ve expected the CR-V to get the Accord’s new engine, though…

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      Well, the CR-V is the best seller in its class, so it must be bland and boring. See also Camry. I sort of get it , there’s a million of them on the road, so it’s hard to get very excited about them. But the competition isn’t any more exciting, just less successful. Does anyone want to argue that an Escape is more engaging to drive?

    • 0 avatar
      petezeiss

      “It goes to show that in addition to the reviews, you have to test drive the vehicles yourself”

      That’s the First Commandment of car buying. Reviews and opinions from “car guys” are marvelous for studying that particular cult but pretty worthless for determining which vehicle truly meets your individual needs and preferences.

      Yes, I’m a Honda fanboi but I got that way by first driving most everything else in my very middle-middle price range.

  • avatar
    HerrKaLeun

    I applaud Honda for staying away from turbos and 8 speed. At this point CVT from Honda probably is more reliable than an unproven 8 or 9 AT. And above 5 or 6 gears, more gears just become moot.

    As for bland, it is just a really good useful and economical vehicle. No exciting drives to the shop or breaking down, no $1000 tire purchades every 15000 miles. Wife has 2013 CRV and still loves it. Drives nicer than my 2007 Mazda since our streets suck. Has all electronic gadgets one actually needs and doesn’t require to program on a screen to turn up the heat.

    Huge trunk, rear doors open 90°, A 6′ guy can sit behind himself comfortably. Just these 3 features bring it on top of 95% of cars. Maintenance cost is negligible.

    And all the above made it the best selling CUV. Why woyld they change the formula based on the same people that demand used Diesel wagons in brown?

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    I’m not allowed by law to have any strong opinion on this matter, since my ’02 Mazda has a 3-speed with overdrive. Which, IIRC, was a big deal…in 1960.

  • avatar
    HerrKaLeun

    Will it get the DI engine from the Accord as well? Is that the very same CVT as in Accord?

  • avatar
    Fordson

    Pretty funny – by my very casual count, somewhere between 0 and 2 male commenters admit to having a CR-V as his own car – probably 12-15 refer to it as “the wife’s car.”

    The CVT is fine, though – another ongoing count of mine has sedately-driven CR-Vs amd RAV4s being responsible for probably 25% of all left-lane blockage, and if a responsive CVT will help drop those numbers, great.

    • 0 avatar
      HerrKaLeun

      Well, it becomes my car when it needs gas :)

      It just happens my wife drives more, so she gets the better car. We use it for together drives or I use it alone when I go hiking with our daughter.

  • avatar
    LectroByte

    Bland? Have you driven an Escape or Equinox lately? The CRV is not exactly my cup of tea, but even with CVT, it would be on the short list if my first wife totals the V6 RAV4.

  • avatar
    petezeiss

    Much though we’ve enjoyed our two CR-Vs I’ve got to say that the occipital bun look to the current model’s rear end annoys the hell out of me. We won’t be getting rid of our ’09 anytime soon.

    But now I’m curious to test drive a CVT version to see what all the hubbub is about.

  • avatar
    HerrKaLeun

    I have a wish that the guy who writes those awesome transmission articles writes one about this or other CVT.

    I like to know what is the difference between good and bad CVT, what wear and maintenance items are, what could possibly break , how likely that is and how expensive that is.

    I think there are way too many fearmongerers who don’t know CVT and just make up problems. I like to think after years of CVT use, Honda is comfortable using it for a reason.

  • avatar
    KrohmDohm

    2 years go my wife bought a 2012 CR-V. I supported the purchase at the time because it made her happier than her previous ride. (don’t ask, I’ll just start crying again). The CR-V is perfectly competent vehicle. It’s reliable, safe enough in a crash, quiet enough on the highway at speed and gets very good mileage. And I absolutely hated it. A golf cart has better steering feel. The bluetooth handsfree system is absurdly out of date of a 2012 vehicle. (it doesn’t use PBAP to properly read your contact list without pre-programmed voice prompts). The stereo was merely adequate and the seats are too wide, flat and firm. The body roll is 1990′s Explorer throwback and the traction control in snow is terrible. And my number 1 beef with the CR-V, the visibility in the rear quarters is terrible. Not just terrible but borderline unsafe. A co-worker bought one last week and within the first day of ownership nearly ran someone out of the right lane due to the size of the blind spot. It’s not just big enough to hide a car but the garage it’s parked in as well. If manufacturers continue to sacrifice visibility at the altar of styling I see this as the next area of regulation by governmental safety bureaus. There should be a minimum cumulative degree of visibility from the drivers seat. If you can’t see trouble you can’t get yourself out of it either.
    So to solve this problem last Saturday we sold the I-Can’t-See-RV and bought the 2015 Subaru Forester. Each one does some things better than the other. And yes the bluetooth system in the Subuaru is just as bad. But the visibility is the best I’ve seen in any vehicle in years. The Harmon-Kardon stereo sounds worlds better. I love the HUGH sunroof! It handles better, rides better, is quiet, reliable, gets good enough MPG. Yep it’s got the CVT and I used to recall in horror of those. Honestly, it drives really well and most people couldn’t tell the difference from a good AT. So far she loves it. And I feel better about her driving it.

    • 0 avatar
      rockets

      @ KrohmDohm…Glad to hear this as we just bought a ’15 Forester also (see my earlier post this thread – the new CRV was my second choice). Have you heard anything about oil consumption problems on the ’15?


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