By on February 17, 2016

2016 Honda HR-V EX-L Navi AWD, Timothy Cain/The Truth About Cars

Every week, I’m driving something different. Just yesterday, I shuffled out of a Fiat 500X Trekking AWD into a Mercedes-Benz GLC300 4Matic for a true back-to-back nine-speed automatic transmission comparo. (Mercedes-Benz wins.)

But in the real world with real money, our family vehicle is a 2015 Honda Odyssey. It’s not our first Honda; it likely won’t be our last. I consider the Accord to be the best midsize sedan on the market. I managed to enjoy a week with the new Honda Pilot despite a troupe of electronic gremlins. I believe the Integra GS-R is the ultimate expression of all that was right with the auto industry. Yet I am not remotely close to succumbing to the notion that Honda can do no wrong.

Crosstour? It’s ghastly and expensive. CR-Z? Sadly, it’s boring and not terribly efficient. Second-gen Insight? A lackluster response to the all-conquering Prius.

HR-V? Quite successful, but also loud, uncomfortable, slow, overpriced, and frustrating.

Priced (in the United States) at $26,890, the 2016 Honda HR-V EX-L Navi AWD is incomplete and unfinished. There are reviews aplenty for those who wish to read about the HR-V’s positives: we published on GCBC last week; Alex Dykes’ thorough video review went live in April.

Yet besides the very concept of the Fit-based HR-V — and the little Honda’s subcompact crossover rivals — and a handful of niggling issues, there are five chief issues, which on their own could be deal breakers for a large number of buyers.

Sure, the HR-V is popular, and sales have decreased during its tenure only because availability is scarce. Yes, subcompact crossover sales are taking off, essentially doubling month after month. But it’s worth noting that traditional compact SUVs/CUVs such as Honda’s own CR-V, a perennial best seller, attract many thousands more buyers.

That won’t always be the case. After all, the nascent subcompact crossover segment is hurrying to make headway. But the HR-V serves to highlight the reasons a typical buyer’s search for an affordable, practical, flexible, efficient vehicle does not presently end with a subcompact crossover purchase.

#1: DRIVER COMFORT
Of course, driver comfort is subjective. My body type, a lanky frame stretching nearly six-feet tall, is not necessarily yours. But in this leather-clad HR-V’s driver’s seat, the side bolstering is too soft to be effective and, far worse, the seat itself does not slide back to create sufficient legroom.

This is a problem in the Fit, and Honda actually lists less front legroom in the HR-V. (Automaker-supplied measurements don’t always make much sense, particularly when it comes to legroom.) Regardless, as someone who rarely slides the seat back to its most distant location, I couldn’t get far enough away from the HR-V’s pedals. Deal breaker.

#2: ROAD & WIND NOISE
In the tweeted words of TTAC’s managing editor:

I’ll accept the fact that in Car and Driver testing of the quiet CR-V Touring and loud HR-V EX-L, sound levels were basically identical. Tolerating the real world impact of the HR-V’s decibels, however, is downright challenging. I can’t blame the Michelin Primacy MXV4 tires, as the same tires on our Odyssey don’t produce the same resulting steady roar. Nor did this 1.8-litre inline-four create such cacophony when it was positioned under the hood of the last-gen Civic.

Noise is fatiguing on the highway. Conversations are held at bay. Other minor irritants become major aggravations because you’re already tensed by the intrusion of the outside world. The HR-V’s noise levels made me wish I was in a Buick Encore, a thought I ne’er had done thunk aforetime.

In an entry-level subcompact car, maybe such a moaning engine and so much inward-directed outside roar would be assumed. But a top-spec HR-V costs 60 percent more than a basic Fit LX. At $27,000, perhaps even $21,000, this is simply not up to the standards of 2016 NVH.

2016 Honda HR-V EX-L green

#3: SLOW
Laden with the equipment of a top-spec model, including approximately 160 pounds of all-wheel-drive components, the HR-V EX-L Navi is slow. Honda didn’t fit the HR-V with the Fit’s smaller, less powerful 130-horsepower 1.5-litre, but the 141-horsepower 1.8-litre is hardly more effective. Acceleration is tepid and produces the kind of noise, already discussed, that prompts drivers to place less pressure on the throttle.

Want to get up to highway speed quickly? Aside from a Nismo-badged Juke or a Mini Countryman JCW, no subcompact crossover will do the deed, but the HR-V is less effective than most.

#4: LIMITED SAVINGS
For automakers, a large part of the reasoning behind subcompact crossovers lies in the profit potential. Take one low-margin subcompact car, elevate ever so slightly, add grey wheel arch cladding, and demand an additional $3,000 – 5,000. Further enhance profitability by sending drive to the rear wheels for at least $1,300.

So we assume that the HR-V and like-minded utilities won’t be direct competitors for their donor vehicles. They’ll line up more directly with compact cars and then, when optioned to the hilt, with their own compact siblings. Honda builds two different all-wheel-drive CR-Vs, the LX and SE, which cost less than this HR-V. The CR-V EX AWD is only $1,305 more than the all-wheel-drive HR-V EX-L Navi.

The CR-V offers 60 percent more cargo volume behind the rear seats; 21 percent more with the seats folded.

Fuel economy? It’s a wash. In our week-long tests, a CR-V Touring AWD on winter tires achieved 23.8 miles per gallon on the U.S. scale during a cold week at the end of January 2015. Almost exactly one year later, the HR-V EX-L Navi AWD did 23.5 mpg on all-season tires. Official EPA ratings are in the HR-V’s favour, but not by much. AWD HR-Vs are rated at 27 mpg city; 32 highway. AWD CR-Vs are rated at 25 in the city; 31 on the highway.

American Honda sold 46,146 HR-Vs during the model’s first nine months on the market. During the same period, Honda also sold 262,276 CR-Vs. Availability accounts for much of the gap. There aren’t fewer than 7,000 HR-Vs in Cars.com’s inventory and nearly 50,000 CR-Vs. But even if Honda had been able to continue the torrid sales pace of the HR-V’s first two months, we’d still be looking at a vehicle that sold once for every four CR-Vs. Money is a factor.

2016 honda hr-v rear seat

#5: ANCHORS
If you’re a car writer who switches car seats back and forth between a Honda Odyssey — among the easiest vehicles for LATCH — and less accommodating vehicles, you’ll discover that the leather-equipped HR-V is among the most hateful.

Stiff, dual vertical flaps protect the HR-V’s anchors from the very items looking to access those anchors. Making the situation even worse are buckles placed directly in front of the inboard flaps, which are directly in front of the anchors.

Do what you’ve got to do to young fathers. Make the HR-V slow, make the HR-V expensive, make the HR-V noisy if you must. Honda can even make me uncomfortable if the company feels ordained to do so. But don’t make the installation of child seats any worse than it already is.

[Images: Timothy Cain/The Truth About Cars | Image Source: Honda]

Timothy Cain is the founder of GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures. Follow on Twitter @goodcarbadcar and on Facebook.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

107 Comments on “The 2016 Honda HR-V Is Honda’s Worst Current Product...”


  • avatar

    Joke’s on you – people who buy HR-Vs reared their last children during the Nixon administration.

  • avatar
    JimZ

    Yet Consumer Retorts will slap a “Recommended ‘cos it’s a Honda” on it.

    • 0 avatar
      Timothy Cain

      CR’s not big on the HR-V.

      Harshest line: “Let’s be clear: The HR-V is not ideal if you require refinement and civility.”

      http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/08/honda-hr-v-review/index.htm
      http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/04/driving-the-2016-honda-hr-v/index.htm

    • 0 avatar

      This whole CR and favouritism argument is old. CR has plenty of negative things to say about any of the Japanese products (hell, they were much more negative about the refreshed RAV-4’s ride than Alex was). They called the 2012 Civic like it was, they called the CrossTour like it was (competent but ugly, illogical, and expensive), they’ve repeatedly downgraded reliability rankings for Honda due to infotainment issues, and very much publicized their dislike for their various interior technologies. Stop it.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        Agreed. Isn’t the highest ranked sedan in their rating system currently the Chevy Impala?

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        One of the most tired, tripe and false troupes touted on here. Right up there with “CUV drivers are bad people”, “Wagons are more practical than CUVs” and other default “B&B” go-to talking points. When I look for a car to buy there are only 4 places I look for information: Alex Dykes channel, Cars.com child seat check, TrueDelta.com & Consumer Reports. A lot of today’s low level auto enthusiasts have had their views molded by the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and Chris Harris. Entertainment is not information.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        You guys are mixing the two “sides” to CR. The “survey” side (the one with the black and red dots) is the one where they determine whether a car gets the “Recommended” label. And yes, in case you’ve a short memory there was a time they were automatically giving all Toyota vehicles a “Recommended” tag.

        http://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver-archive/2007/10/consumer-reports-toyota-quality-sees-cracks-in-its-armor.html

        The “Reviews” side of CR is the one where they actually road test and compare cars. The two “sides” of CR are frequently in conflict. This is why you’ll read things like “CR says the Tesla Model S is so good it broke their ratings scale!” but then the “survey” side says “don’t buy it because it’s unreliable.”

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          If a car scores low enough in the road tests, they still will not recommend the car even if it has sterling reliability ratings. See Toyota Yaris and 2012 Honda Civic.

          http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/08/2012-honda-civic-lx-scores-too-low-for-consumer-reports-to-recommend/index.htm

          And they did not “automatically” give a recommended tag to all Toyotas without merit, Toyota had such consistently strong reliability ratings that they would “automatically” rate them as reliable in the interim between model release and actual reliability data. Since they cannot recommend an unreliable car, they now have to wait for the data even if the road test is positive.

        • 0 avatar

          No, JimZ, I’m not mixing up the two sides. My comments were reflective situations where both ‘sides’ of their organisation provided pretty negative feedback regarding vehicles that, by your estimation of CR, they should have given glowing reviews/ratings of. In some cases, CR continues a ‘Recommended’ rating for a new replacement model if the underlying components haven’t changed significantly and it’s maintained a strong reputation of reliability for a long period of time. See the Camry, which has been using the same engine for what, like, three generations? The approach has its flaws, but they do revisit it if the survey data shows a different result (as they did with the Camry V6, for example). Your argument still holds no weight.

        • 0 avatar
          nrcote

          @JimZ

          Keep digging.

        • 0 avatar
          glwillia

          JimZ: Not true. They only recommend a car if it scores at least average reliability AND if it performs well in their road test. They do tend to recommend a lot of Toyotas, but most Toyotas aren’t bad cars, they’re just not aimed at the enthusiast. I would definitely refer to CR if I were in the market for a new car (and do in fact heavily trust their judgement when it comes to buying e.g. appliances).

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        Which I could never figure out..even if the infotainment is acting up, if the car starts and runs like a Swiss watch on only oil changes and wiper blades through the warranty period, why would folks mark that as a major issue on the survey, thus earning the car the “black circle of death?” Especially when the problem is addressed eventually?

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    I think the engineers all watched Saw II before they put in that LATCH system.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Fitting a car seat to a car you are not familiar with is awful. It’s even worse if it’s a car seat that you aren’t familiar with. I got into quite a brawl with an Avis Toyota Avalon and whatever car seat I rented at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Rental Car garage.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        How long does that take? Like 10 minutes?

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          It took me almost 20 minutes. Since it was 104 degrees out, I was a sweaty mess by the time I was done.

          I can get a car seat connected to the LATCH system in my car or my wife’s car in less than 5 minutes. When I switched from an Avalon to a Taurus that week because the Avalon was awful, I found that the Taurus was much easier to fit a car seat in to.

          • 0 avatar
            Waftable Torque

            That’s why I don’t even use LATCH. I just use the 3 point seat belt to fasten the car seat as per the manufacturer’s instructions, and it’s done in a minute. I’m open to switching if someone has studies that show LATCH is far superior though.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I’ve honestly just used LATCH because that’s what I thought I was supposed to do. I haven’t even tried anything else. I’ve been brainwashed by the child safety people. Probably the same people that spearheaded the recall of my daughter’s bath seat because, “a child left unattended in this product may drown.”

          • 0 avatar
            alawat

            LATCH and normal 3-point seatbelts are equally effective when used correctly. LATCH is just easier for the average person to install, with seatbelts it’s more difficult to get the slack out. Also some seats recommend not using LATCH over a certain child weight, like around 40 #’s.
            -Father of 4 who has to install/remove way too many car seats

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            It depends on how much the seat weighs, but you are right. Typically it’s 69 lbs combined weight between the child and car seat while facing forward. It depends on the brand though.

            Edit: I think I’m going to do the seatbelt install with our car seats this weekend. Britax says I can do seatbelt AND LATCH. MOAR SAFETY!

          • 0 avatar
            05lgt

            @ Waftable Torque; when I asked myself the same question I eventually interpreted the bulk of what I found like this: LATCH is “easier” to get right and therefore safer, while it’s not as safe as a properly secured 3 point belt attachment. It’s certainly easier to know when the LATCH is wrong. It’s all or nothing.

          • 0 avatar
            gearhead77

            I had a similar experience with a Chevy Traverse in Atlanta. Using the LATCH and installing unfamiliar car seats in an unfamiliar car is one joy of parenting I won’t miss. Thankfully we don’t do it often.

            Tim’s right, the Odyssey has a great latch system and is fairly easy to deal with. So was our Mazda 5 when we had the kids seats in it.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Something I’m dreading is a Christmas 2016 trip to Nashville (my wife’s sister is hosting Christmas). Fly in with my then 2 year old daughter, rent a vehicle, and try to get the damn car seat secured. Ugggghhhhhhh.

            Although I am determined to rent a minivan no matter how uncool my lady thinks it is.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Dan-

            If you bring your car seat, you’ll have better luck. We rented on from Avis because our daughter was just under a year at the time and I didn’t want to buy three first class seats (go go credit card points). We are going to Disney World this year (kill me now), and I’ll bring the car seat with us and pay for the Economy+ on Delta. I’m actually thinking about just booking first class because it’s only $160 a person more round trip. The hotel is free because I have been saving up rewards nights.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Peg Perego says 45 lbs with LATCH and 65 lbs (!) with 3-point belts for my convertible seat.

            I’ll be thinking about this before too long. My son isn’t even two yet and he’s already 32 lbs. (If he keeps this rate up he’s going to be five inches taller than me.)

            I’d rather fight an unfamiliar car and seat at the airport than schlep my seat from car to parking lot shuttle to check-in to gate to bag claim to rental car shuttle to rental car and back again.

  • avatar
    NormSV650

    I don’t think the HR-V will ever surpass Encore or Trax sales levels without the typical early Honda refresh.

  • avatar
    AK

    It is a terrible car

    The overtaxed 1.8 liter paired with the CVT is pretty much the anthesis of what Honda used to be (smooth 4 cylinder, slick manual transmission).

    The quest for fuel economy along with the public’s desire for cross overs has really made for some bad decisions by manufacturers.

    • 0 avatar
      Tinn-Can

      That’s unfortunate, my girlfriend bought a FIT and I thought the HRV would be a little bit more spry with the 1.8…

    • 0 avatar
      islander800

      That’s one thing not mentioned in the article – the horrible CVT. I guess he figured there were enough negatives as it is.

      You’re absolutely right that the CVT is the antithesis of what Honda built tt’s reputation on – great, responsive engines with transmissions to match. I couldn’t believe it when they announced, sorry, no proper autos, just this rubber band slush box. Hell, if I wanted a ’53 Buick with Dynadrive, I’d go to Barrett Jackson.

      Honda sure makes it hard to like them these days. And I have an Element and a Fit, after two Accords.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        When I test-drove an Accord CVT after the 9th-Gens came out, I was impressed — just like a normal slushbox without upshifts. I was a little less impressed with the CR-V’s on the MMC — “rubber-banding” at lower engine speeds, along with a bit less mid-range performance. Not deal-breaking, but something with which you’d need to become accustomed.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I’m thinking some of these more recent CUVs are somewhat rushed out in order to capitalize on the segment’s popularity.

  • avatar
    zip89105

    I’m no fan of the HR-V either, but Honda is selling them as fast as they can make them.

  • avatar
    notapreppie

    The wife and I poked and prodded one for a a good 20 minutes last weekend at the Chicago Auto Show and found it to be a well-packaged vehicle. I liked the way the back seats folded and the cup holders are the only car we looked at that actually fit my thermos and her Camelbak water bottle. The lack of knobs on the center stack was a little weird but I could probably get used to it.

    We weren’t able to convince them to let us drive one around the show floor (too many people, they said) but I’m not expecting perfection. It’s head and shoulders above the Encore/Traxxxxxx (which were incredibly disappointing) easily comparable to CX-3 (whose $3k diff over the Mazda 3 defies logic) and only a 1.5L Turbo away from beating the Juke.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      Curious what the appeal is over the even better packaged and substantially cheaper Honda Fit?

      • 0 avatar
        DeeDub

        ’cause it’s a CUV, duh!

        • 0 avatar
          notapreppie

          It’s mostly aesthetics. My wife thinks the Fit is ugly.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Man, I’m glad I am not tasked with styling cars because I’d never be able to predict what people liked to look at. I don’t swoon over the Fit, but I find the HR-V abhorrent from every angle.

            Interesting that aesthetics are worth about $3500 in asking price to some of us, though.

      • 0 avatar
        tjh8402

        @ 30-mile fetch – unless their a car enthusiast, nobody will question/judge your decision to buy the HR-V. Everybody is buying crossovers and its a Honda so naturally it must be a good idea. Meanwhile, the Fit is perceived as a cheap slow economy car and everyone will want to know why you didn’t buy something nicer. When I was car shopping a year ago, I came very close to buying a Fit, and I had to justify myself to people when they heard I was considering it. They acted like I would have to surrender my dignity, self respect, and manhood to own one.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Never let anyone know what you’re considering buying until you’ve bought it. Once you’ve bought it, they’ll keep any judgement they have to themselves.

          • 0 avatar
            tjh8402

            @Drzhivago138 – I don’t care what people think of what I drive. The Fit is a great car and would’ve done well with me. Sometimes I wish I had bought one. I told them to shove it at that time.

            Oh, and buying something didn’t stop the judgment. I’ve gotten plenty of criticism and teasing for what I did buy – a Fiat 500 Abarth. It’s annoying sometimes but fuck em. It’s been a good car for me and has done exactly what I needed. People are so insecure sometimes.

      • 0 avatar
        notapreppie

        DeeDub is about right. My wife hates the way the Fit looks (and it would be primarily her car).

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    Including Grandma’s 2014 Soul, I really don’t care for the way that any of these subcompact crossovers drive. They’re loud, buzzy and, yes, unrefined. The only one that I liked from behind the driver’s seat was the Nissan Juke, but the triangular cargo-hold and unpalatable styling made it a deal-breaker. The Encore and Tax were slow as well as narrow. I have not yet driven the CX-3.

    I would definitely just go ahead and go one size up for a compact crossover. If $30K was my cap for one of these (and it is) that would still get me a nicely-equipped CX-5, CR-V, Tucson or Rogue…to name a few.

    • 0 avatar
      Der_Kommissar

      CX-3 drives like amazeballs. It’s just too tiny in the back to be worth it in a world where you can get a Mazda 3 hatch.

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      Disagree on the 2014 and up Soul. Having spent plenty of seat time (40K miles actually) in a 2014 it’s fairly quiet, rides decent and all the controls and switches are pretty good quality—head and shoulders above the Scion and Fiat 500L models. The first generation ones were quite noisy (good luck using Bluetooth), felt tinny and didn’t track all that well on the highway. They aren’t made for handling or for being “sporty” though, but they never claimed to be.

      To be honest—these are great “old people” cars. Tall enough to climb in and out of, AWD for that “peace of mind”, and not that expensive.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        I never drove the previous Soul. I just know that our 2014 likes to race to the highest gear, makes the most god-awful noise if you accelerate even slightly, and has brakes that are downright scary in spirited driving.

        But since Grandma just put-puts around town, it’s perfectly suitable. And I do like the styling, features and price. The infotainment system (ours has the nav/premium-audio combo) is leaps and bounds above the one in my Golf SportWagen. And it does have good ingress/egress height, which is one of the main reasons she chose it.

  • avatar
    Der_Kommissar

    It needs the 1.5 turbo or the 2.0 NA from the new civic. I think that will transform the car, but it can’t fix the car seat anchors. That is an unforgivable sin in a car like this.

  • avatar
    LectroByte

    Slow? How slow is it? At least throw in a 0-60 time or something. The Truth About The Truth About Cars, you are sometimes lazy with things like “details”, but hey, we are still clicking on this ad-cluttered mess, so what do I know?

    • 0 avatar
      Timothy Cain

      Pay close attention to the one second gap between the HR-V and CX-3 in the 50-70 test. http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/mazda-cx-3-awd-vs-fiat-500x-awd-honda-hr-v-awd-jeep-renegade-4×4-chevrolet-trax-awd-kia-soul-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-8

  • avatar
    Felix Hoenikker

    “and demand an additional $3,000 – 5,000”
    AKA the stupidity tax.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    I guess AWD and a higher hip point is really all it takes to turn a subpar vehicle into a hot seller. Even before I had kids, this would have had zero appeal, but the well-executed Fit or Kia Soul sure would have. I suppose it is for after kids, used primarily as a two-seat suburban runabout for empty nesters or the truly elderly. It will likely hold its value and reliably provide its meager positive attributes for years into the future. I’m truly surprised Toyota isn’t in this segment yet.

    • 0 avatar

      “I guess AWD and a higher hip point is really all it takes to turn a subpar vehicle into a hot seller.”

      Are we talking about the Fit to HR-V conversion? Because I wouldn’t say the Fit is a subpar vehicle. In fact, it’s pretty roundly seen as the best vehicle in its class.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        No, Fit is Go(od). I’m talking about the HR-V and this entire segment. Subtract the AWD and a higher seating position, and this appears to be a subpar vehicle with an overtaxed and unrefined powertrain, too much weight, compromised interior packaging, and a questionable asking price. To me, that is too many compromises for AWD and a slightly taller view of the road.

  • avatar
    spreadsheet monkey

    The pricing of the HRV relative to the CRV smacks of optimism/greed on Honda’s part. 70% of the car for 90% of the price.

  • avatar
    RetroGrouch

    “Take one low-margin subcompact car, elevate ever so slightly, add grey wheel arch cladding, and demand an additional $3,000 – 5,000. Further enhance profitability by sending drive to the rear wheels for at least $1,300.”

    Agreed. I have warned people away from these overpriced buzz boxes for years.

  • avatar
    Brumus

    141 measly horses.

    Well, at least this motor delivers lots of torque.

  • avatar
    319583076

    Where will the GLC review appear? When?

    • 0 avatar
      Timothy Cain

      That’s special to GoodCarBadCar, likely early next week. Quite a package, stunning interior (aside from tacked-on screen), decent amount of rear seat space, dynamic mode selector that provides strikingly different driving experiences, terrific ride, impressive steering. 9-speed is mostly alright. 2.0L turbo is sufficient; might be nice to have more power.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    Still…it’s gotta be better than the Chevy Trax, right?

    ….Right?

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    How’s the rear headroom?

  • avatar
    jacob_coulter

    I get that this car is entry level, but does sound deadening really cost a lot of money? I would think additional sound deadening foam would be cheaper than floor mats on a car. I’m not talking anything crazy like triple sealed door seals or double paned windows, just additional foam in the doors, dash, floorpan, etc.

    If you’ve ever had something like a door panel apart on an economy car, many times there’s nothing but a sheet of plastic just to keep the water off the inside.

    You would think making an economy car quiet would be an easy way for an automaker to differentiate their product from the competition and cost next to nothing.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      Even better door seals are cheap, it’s more in the form of the door itself (whether the gap faces into the wind or avoids it by gap design). No, NVH is intentionally sold on luxury vehicles as a benefit of ‘quality’ in that the foam is the magic reason why a Lexus costs 15K more than a Toyota. Without that foam you’re looking at marginal styling cues & maybe an uprated engine.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      That’s what Chevy has done with the Cruze for some time now. Armchair enthusiasts therefore criticize it for its weight.

    • 0 avatar
      Macca

      @jacob_coulter: I’ve often wondered the same thing. I think Xeranar mostly hit the nail on the head from the up-sell standpoint.

      I also think it is a combo of cutting pennies and marginal weight savings.

      There are two components to noise reduction, however, one of which does contribute some weight. Many folks, myself included, have gone nuts slathering Dynamat-like thin foam all over the floorpan and door panels in their car only to find a minimal noise reduction. That’s because the thin foam (jute) is mostly a dampening/decoupling material that prevents large sheets of metal from resonating.

      Truly blocking sound requires a material like mass-loaded vinyl, which is fairly heavy and could easily contribute 50+ lbs (perhaps up to 100lbs) if used liberally.

  • avatar
    shaker

    As has been said, Honda’s cashing in on the craze started by the Encore – jack up an existing platform, add AWD and $$$$!

    Close to the room and mileage of the previously mentioned/trashed Suzuki SX-4, at double the price.

    We’ve come a long way, baby.

  • avatar
    BoogerROTN

    I’d have to say my Honda mower is the worst POS Honda product currently on sale. Honda quality hype and a “Buy ‘Murican” (assembled in N.C.) attitude kicked me in the nuts.

    In fairness though, the plastics on my mower are softer to the touch than those in a Ridgeline…

  • avatar
    gearhead77

    Hondas and Acuras have always been fairly noisy, I don’t see why this is a shock. The point is valid though, that it’s no longer acceptable in 2016.

    My 2016 Cruze Limited ( old style) is quiet in terms of road noise, wind noise and suspension noise. I’d say its as quiet as our 2014 Odyssey EX-L and the Chevy doesn’t have an active noise cancellation system! But the Chevy has much more coarse drivetrain, especially in terms of noise and vibration. But comparing a 1.4 turbo to a 3.5 V6 isn’t exactly apples to apples.

    Honda motors have always been pretty smooth running, I was always impressed by the smoothness and drivability of the 2.4 four in our 06 Accord. I’ve had an 88 and 89 Legend, my folks had a 92 Integra and for their times, they were rather refined motors.

    Nothing surprises me about this take on the HRV.

  • avatar
    09box

    I’ve had an 07 Fit in the past and hands down one of my favorite cars ever. The magic seat in the back is a huge plus in these. I’d escape the awd and get a six speed manual and fwd please.

  • avatar
    derekson

    Seems like some sound deadening and the new 1.5T from the 2016 Civic would fix most of what ails the HR-V.

  • avatar
    Superdessucke

    The problem is that this turd will hurt Honda in the long run. Its buyers won’t say “gee, maybe I shouldn’t have paid an Accord price for a jacked up Fit, duh!” Instead, they will blame Honda. I predict five to seven years from now they will start to have trouble selling product.

  • avatar
    SoCalMikester

    The HRV starts at 20k, the CRV starts at 23k. thats the problem right there. if its going to be a 2/3rds scale CRV, it needs to start at 17k max.

  • avatar

    I’ve read the article to the end. All that happened was Tim got super mad about the anchors and then produced a mountain out of molehill to lash out. Good job. Made me click!

    I have to say though, observed mileage is not confidence-inspiring. I know someone who’s driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee and gets the same 24 mpg every day (or so they say). At least HR-V has beaten my Wrangler, where I get about 19 (last fill was 270 miles by 14 gallons). I’d expect no less than 28 from a smallish CUV. Time to put a turbo engine into this, Honda.

  • avatar
    akbarfit

    http://www.kaskus.co.id/thread/5666802a9e7404a2028b456a/pengalaman-saya-bersama-honda-hrv-18-prestige/

    There is a huge problem with HR-V in Indonesia, in includes in warped windshield, rattling driver side window, non-describable and cannot be found sound on the front arm and many more…

    Besides, the car is very popular in Indonesia, some of the build quality are downgraded…

    This car is in the same compact car project for developing countries.
    HR-V, Jazz, Mobilio, Brio, BR-V. Are all using common parts..
    Go check for yourself. Do the reading with Google Translate.

  • avatar
    tabaplar

    Couldn’t agree more with the limited legroom. I’m admittedly a big guy, 6′-4″ 250, but i fit just fine in in the CX-5, Forester, Tucson, etc. Checking out the HR-V at a recent auto show I thought the seat track must be obstructed at first.

    Not. Even. Close.

    I find the CR-V short on legroom as well. Better, but still a deal breaker.

  • avatar
    18726543

    I put my time in with these little guys last weekend. My girlfriend was looking for a car to replace the 2010 Dodge Caliber she bought new (surprisingly solid car at 92k miles). She wanted something roughly the same size, but with better sight lines and all wheel drive. She’s a vet tech and often needs to get to the vet hospital during bad weather, and also she frequently runs Spartan Runs and the like which have some pretty horrible parking situations. Considering that we have no interest in having kids, we aren’t going to out-grow a vehicle this size.

    We drove the HR-V, CX-3, Crosstrek, and Renegade. The HR-V was definitely the least peppy, and I wasn’t too impressed with the interior. From the front passenger seat my view of the dash displayed a roughly 12″ long by 2″ high air vent. It was almost like Honda had decided the interior materials were so cheap they didn’t want to display too broad an unbroken area right at eye level, so they jammed in this giant air vent to dress things up. Very awkward looking.

    The CX-3 had a very nice looking interior, with some carbon fiber (simulated, I assume) inlays, soft red leatherette accents, real (and molded) dash stitching, and a plethora of other surface textures. I was shocked, however, at how small the car was! I know none of these are big, but the CX-3 felt considerably smaller than all the other vehicles we drove that day. As typical of Mazda, the ride felt firmer and the steering more responsive, and the car had noticeably more kick than the Honda. Braking feel was also very impressive.

    The Crosstrek was a comfortable drive. It felt a little less peppy than the CX-3, but more-so than the HR-V. My girlfriend didn’t care about the CVT since it’s what she’s used to with her Calibur, and I honestly don’t think she could tell the difference between a CVT and a geared auto anyway. I really liked the way the Crosstrek looked with the ivory interior. The seat material looked like it was chosen with outdoorsey people in mind…easy to clean, durable, but comfortable. Because of that dealer’s proximity to Gambrill State Park we were able to drive some pretty exciting mountain roads all while it was actively snowing. There was about an inch or two of cover on the roads while we were out and I have to give credit to the salesman in the back. He must’ve had balls of steel because he never once suggested that we turn back, or even slow down. The car steered, braked, and accelerated marvelously.

    The Renegade we drove had the 2.4L engine so it had plenty enough power to feel adequate. It’s a neat looking vehicle, but I think we both felt like we’d tire of it quickly. The mud splatter on the tach designating “redline”, the “1941” molded into the center stack, the little Jeep easter eggs hidden everywhere…I can’t imagine living with all that crap. It almost felt like eating at the kid’s table compared to the other vehicles. A giant Optimus Prime on your table cloth is pretty damn cool when you’re 12, but there comes a time when you must enjoy Optimus Prime quietly within yourself and put on your big boy clothes to go to work. Also, the Renegade we drove had the “My Sky” option (the two giant sunroof panels) and the snow falling on the vehicle was surprisingly loud while we were driving. I can’t imagine what it would sound like in there if you were caught in a down-pour.

    After the test drives we went home to do some reliability research because the Renegade and Crosstrek have been out long enough to get some feedback. Truedelta suggested that the 13, 14, and 15 Crosstreks had all been reliable, to very reliable choices. Some quick internet searches showed the 2015 Renegade was quite a heap. I found many complaints about the 9-speed auto, parasitic draws resulting in a dead battery, the key fob being unable to control the door locks, a water leak here and there, and most of these issues surfaced prior to the first oil change.

    In the end my girlfriend decided on the Crosstrek. With her trade-in she got a 2016 model in Quartz Blue over Ivory cloth, Premium Package for $19k out the door. Hopefully it won’t become a basket case when the odometer turns 6 digits, but even if it does that’s quite a ways away and Subies have surprisingly high resale values. We’ll have amortized the headache over many a mud-run/mountain bike race by then!

  • avatar
    laserwizard

    It’s a Honduh. That means buyers don’t care it is ugly, expensive, noisy, or fuel thirsty. Honduh buyers have an image of their company that hasn’t existed in twenty years or more – dependable, well designed, and unique products. Today’s Honduhs are expensive, bloated eyesores that aren’t well made or the best at anything.

    I laugh at those who recommend the Accord. Considering that the Accord was like a lanky 165 pound youngster that has now grown into a 250 pound overweight lunkhead, I can’t see how you can recommend the disaster. The Civic is the latest bloatware from Honduh – now bigger than the original Accord, we have a company that has lost its way.

    But Honduh knows its customers are idiots – they thought so little of the Honditwits that they decontented the Civic only to throw back some goodies and then to hide the disaster they brought out king kong civic – the biggest disaster on the eyes since Pontiac’s Aztek (or anything made by Toyoduh).

    Why should the HRV be any good? Honduh knows these will sell to their seagull customers.

    • 0 avatar
      RideHeight

      Sounds like new Hondas are out of your reach. You probably hate a lot of other new cars, too, for the same reason.

      But at least you’re not calling them chick cars!

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Please provide me with a list of midsized sedans that are not heavier or larger in footprint then their company’s midsized sedan in the 80s/90s. The current Accord doesn’t do anything for me, but it’s not like it is larger than the competition.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Alex L. Dykes, United States
  • Kamil Kaluski, United States
  • Seth Parks, United States
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Kyree Williams, United States

Get No-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners Automotive News in your Facebook Feed!

Already Liked