By on January 26, 2015

2015 Honda CR-V TouringThe Honda CR-V was America’s best-selling SUV in 2014, just as it was in six of the seven previous years. (We’re using the term “SUV” loosely here in order to avoid constant delineation.) CR-V volume increased to previously unseen levels in 2014. Honda reported 335,019 CR-V sales last year, 28,807 more than Ford managed with its second-best-selling Escape; 31,115 more than Honda achieved with the CR-V one year earlier.


• USD As-Tested Price: $33,775

• Horsepower: 185 @ 6400 rpm

• Torque: 181 @ 3900 rpm

• Observed Fuel Economy: 23.8 mpg


American consumers look favourably upon Honda’s reliability reputation. The CR-V is also a long-established nameplate in a relatively fresh category. But there must be numerous other reasons for the CR-V’s wild success.

More specifically, there must have been numerous other reasons at the tail end of 2014, as a refreshed 2015 CR-V like the one Honda Canada sent to our driveway began to outsell not only all other SUVs with increasingly large margins but also all passenger cars, as well.

2015 Honda CR-V TouringClearly tens of thousands of consumers are willing to overlook the CR-V’s faults, few though there may be. The CR-V’s new continuously variable transmission, implemented surprisingly well alongside the a 185-horsepower 2.4L four-cylinder, periodically allows revs to fall so low that an unnecessary amount of vibration enters the cabin. This Touring-trim CR-V is the full meal deal, but it lacks any form of power adjustment for the passenger seat. The interior, particularly at this lofty USD $33,775 price tag, is mostly inoffensive but offers luxury only in terms of equipment, not in its materials or design flair. And the interior can certainly offend, with Lilliputian buttons accompanying a touchscreen which failed on all but one occasion to come to life before the five-minute mark of a morning drive. Speaking subjectively, the CR-V is not the prettiest girl next door – Paris’s Place de l’Étoile doesn’t have as many intersecting lines as the CR-V’s front end. We’re also left to wonder why Honda hires wheel designers whose efforts wouldn’t be good enough for Pontiac circa 2001.

However, the CR-V is near perfect where it counts. It’s less than 180 inches long but packs 101 cubic feet of completely usable passenger volume into the tidy package. Rear seat passengers enjoy a flat floor that makes three-across trips a distinct possibility. Rear seats up, the CR-V provides 37 cubic feet of cargo capacity. The Ford Escape is one inch shorter than the CR-V, bumper to bumper, but offers 8% less cargo volume, 3% less passenger space, and 4% less rear legroom. It feels like the dimensional differences are more distinguishable than those figures suggest, especially aft of the rear seat.

2015 Honda CR-V interiorFor young families who might have sought out an Accord in a previous era, the 2015 CR-V’s space efficiency, easily accessed seat-folding levers, low load floor, and semi-lofty ride height form a winning ticket.

Fortunately, it drives nicely, as well. There is nothing sporty here, although the steering is well weighted and the brake pedal is nicely modulated. The CR-V accelerates more swiftly than you might expect for a 3642-pound high-rider: Car & Driver says 0-60 mph takes 8.2 seconds. Especially as revs rise to a more Honda-like level, the CR-V doesn’t require more power, but don’t take that as an indication that the CR-V will adequately satisfy your urge to scoot up off-ramps like your fellow hockey parents in their Santa Fe Sport 2.0Ts and Forester XTs. It won’t.

The CR-V may not ride quite as sweetly for MY2015 as it did before the refresh, but overall refinement is still the name of its game. Of greater consequence is the fact that the 2015 CR-V continues to marry subdued ride quality to a nimble chassis. Honda engineers crafted an SUV that feels decidedly compact in routine driving and one which remains rather level-headed through corners, seemingly treading the middle ground between the mature Nissan Rogue and the enthusiastic Mazda CX-5.

2015 CR-V Tourings include most of the features from Honda’s storehouse: all-wheel-drive, navigation, LaneWatch (right side only, of course), keyless access, perforated leather seating, power tailgate, sunroof, and a bevy of safety abbreviations from ABS, EBD, and VSE to CMBS, ACC, LDW, and LKAS, the final being a semi-autonomous steering function that helps to reduce driver fatigue on long highway stints.

CR-V touchscreenCR-Vs start at $24,325 in LX trim. All-wheel-drive adds $1250 to the price of any equipment level: LX, the $26,425 EX, $29,025 EX-L, $30,525 EX-L Navi, or the $32,525 Touring. We averaged 23.8 mpg over the course of a week with the CR-V Touring AWD, which tips the scales with 145 extra pounds compared with the base all-wheel-drive CR-V. Cold temperatures, winter tires, frequent snow coverage, and a disproportionate amount of time spent in the city caused the CR-V’s observed fuel economy to come up short of both the official combined rating of 28 mpg and the 26 mpg city rating.

The CR-V is certainly not the most exciting small utility vehicle on the market today, nor is it the only one capable of cramming a shocking amount of humankind and stuff into a small space. But it does most things better than most of its potential competitors. There are a couple of niggling issues Honda could quickly resolve, but clearly no issues Honda needs to resolve in order to keep the CR-V at the top of the sales leaderboard.

Timothy Cain is the founder of GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

127 Comments on “Capsule Review: 2015 Honda CR-V Touring...”


  • avatar
    anti121hero

    23.8 mpg.I could almost get that in my 22 year old ford pickup with the 4.9 straight six with a quarter million miles. “Progress”.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      Just what every young family needs, a 22 year old Ford pick-up

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      “23.8 mpg.I could almost get that in my 22 year old ford pickup with the 4.9 straight six”

      As an owner of a 4.9L Ford truck and having driven multiple iterations with various transmissions, no you can’t.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        1993 Ford F150 Pickup 2WD 6 cyl, 4.9 L, Automatic 4-spd, Regular Gasoline 14/City 15/Combined 18/Highway

        Manual Trans 15/city 15/combined 17/hwy

        http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1993_Ford_F150_Pickup.shtml

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        My brother had a standard cab, short bed, 2WD, manual, early 90s 4.9 (as in the last of them) and he couldn’t even get 18 on the highway.

    • 0 avatar
      dswilly

      You got 22+ mpg with the 4.9 six? I call bull. That’s a great engine but mpg is not in its playbook. Mine in perfect tune would get 13mpg all day, every day, uphill, downhill, head wind, tail wind, trailer on, trailer off. 13 mpg, I quit checking it was so consistent. Maybe yours was running really lean and cooking the valves.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        That 13-15mpg range was what I found to be consistent with those too. With the automatic transmissioned ones, it seemed they got even worse mileage on the highway if you pushed them over 60mph.

        • 0 avatar
          dswilly

          Mine was the 1996 last generation with fuel injection and a 5 spd manual. The truck was a short bed F-150 4×4. To add insult to injury it had a small single gas tank. I would need to look for a gas station every 180-200 miles, it was awful.

          • 0 avatar
            anti121hero

            The 95 + 96 4.9s had extra emissions and computer garbage that seriously hindered performance, despite what figures say. I speak from owning and seeing others own many of these trucks.

        • 0 avatar
          mikeg216

          They did, have a 95 long bed dual tank, it’s the heavy half ton. Has a 3 speed automatic, 16-18 city loafing around. At 70 mph she’s pretty much all wound out 10-12 mpg glad I’m not the only one this happened to.. Thought I was crazy.

      • 0 avatar
        anti121hero

        13 mpg is quite terrible. Mine consistently got over 20 mpg, never under, with a 5 speed, 2wd, and a complete MagnaFlow exhaust and always completely tuned up. I never thought much about it. I will say my jeep 4.0s have seriously disappointed me in the mpg factor, best I can manage is 15.5 mpg.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      Asinine anecdotal data. My 18 year old 4wd 4Runner with a V6 can get 20mpg on the highway in the summer with some regularity, but in the sort of conditions that Mr. Cain’s CRV was driven in (short trips, idling, cold, snow tires) I’m lucky to break 14 mpg. And that’s with my careful, economy minded driving. The fact that the CRV weighs just 100 lb less than my 4Runner, yet gets 10 MPG better in similar conditions while having superior acceleration is very much progress. That it extracts 185hp from a 2.4L naturally aspirated 4 cylinder while my 3.4L V6 has 183hp is progress.

    • 0 avatar

      And my 95 Explorer has cracked 30mpg before, but that doesn’t mean its fun to drive to get it there. 22-23 is all its really good for highway mileage, and it averages 18 on my work commute.

      My 77 Chevelle in theory can get 22mpg, but best I’ve seen it get is 21, and it gets a whopping 12 in traffic.

      Would I trade that Explorer for a new CR-V? Heck ya! that 20 year old box on wheels is tired, and flat worn out at 340,000 miles.

    • 0 avatar
      carve

      My dad had an ’86 F-150 with the I6 and a 4-spd trans with a granny first (2nd gear starts for normal driving- 1st was only for going up a steep hill with a load, so it was effectively a 3-spd manual). It got about 18 mpg cruising at 55-60. He had an otherwise identical ’83 with the non-granny 4-spd and taller gearing and said it’d get low 20’s under similar conditions, but he got the other one because it could barely pull his boat up the ramp with those high gears. Anti12hero might’ve gotten 23.8 as a best under unusual conditions, but I doubt it’s an every tank kind of mpg.

    • 0 avatar
      kychungkevin

      Many people compare their old car mpg to the new car; claiming there are no different hence new car sucks. Well you forget new car have a lot more equipment (put an old day clock radio in a new car and see what people saying); need to be quieter; engine need to burn cleaner…all these thing add weight and complexity…
      Oh and gun to your head, you have to choose between the 2 cars, drive up to 60 mph and crash to a wall; at the same time other car hit you on the driver side. Which one would you choose? I take a ‘not much progress’ crv thank you very much!

      in case you forgot the good old days:
      youtube.
      com/watch?v=jlDbJHcRE2M

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      “23.8 mpg.I could almost get that in my 22 year old ford pickup with the 4.9 straight six with a quarter million miles. “Progress”.”

      I don’t know if this was trolling or just a knee-jerk reaction to seeing one number and reflexively comparing it to another without any context. Either way the thinking part of the brain, like CR-V’s touchscreen, wasn’t quite fired up yet.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      I’d rather have the used Ford pickup.

      This CR-V whatever is a joke at 33k new. Honda tapped into this market at the perfect time when they can get anywhere near 30k for this at the same time a well equipped, new, better Honda Accord can be had for very close to 20k.

      • 0 avatar
        anti121hero

        Best part is I bought that truck for 700$ five years ago. Best money ever spent. Only 100$ of parts have gone in it not including oil changes. If you want to get gritty about proposition about money, you can’t beat that.

      • 0 avatar
        Dave M.

        The Accord wouldn’t be anywhere near better equipped unless you’re comparing the Accord LX ($22k) and CR-V LX ($24k). And you can;t get AWD on the Accord…

    • 0 avatar
      Superdessucke

      He’s exaggerating but the point is well taken. What kind of mileage did an Accord sedan get 22 years ago? That’s the vehicle that this has replaced. That car got 19/26, or 22 combined, so progress has been about 1.8 MPG over 22 years.

      The current F-150 with the base engine gets 18/25, or 20 MPG combined. That’s progress of about 2 MPG. So we’ve reduced fuel consumption on two very mainstream vehicles by about 2 MPG over two decades.

  • avatar
    ezeolla

    “..a touchscreen which failed on all but one occasion to come to life before the five-minute mark of a morning drive.”

    That seems pretty unacceptable for 2015

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Agreed. Even MFT starts up everytime now.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      Right up there with GMC’s Intellilink system, which only occasionally deigns to play an album through on its own without me hitting play for each song, and keeps the backup camera image on the screen for about 5 seconds after I put it back into drive.

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        @Dwford

        After 45,000 trouble free miles I’m happy to report that my Equinox and its MyLink system does not randomly play tracks. I does keep the BUC up for a moment after shifting into drive but I assume that’s intentional.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          “I does keep the BUC up for a moment after shifting into drive but I assume that’s intentional.”

          Because everyone needs to see what they backed into while driving away?

  • avatar
    spreadsheet monkey

    Good review. I am strongly considering replacing the two cars in our household (2013 Audi A4 wagon and 2004 CR-V) with a new CR-V. The latest generation of CR-V is a nice car, but steep prices in the UK for the loaded model are making me consider other crossovers like the Ford Kuga/Escape or (gulp) Kia Sportage.

  • avatar
    kovakp

    Give me a vaguely rectilinear D-pillar and I’d love this long time.

    If only VW could style Hondas.

    • 0 avatar
      Dave M.

      I think it’s kind of funky cool. For Honda. Certainly not the bastard look of the Odyssey….

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        My daughter has a 2013 Odyssey and I don’t think it looks bastardly. I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but IMO the Odyssey looks kinda feminine. A lotta women drive them but I have never seen a man drive an Odyssey in my travels.

  • avatar
    dwford

    Where the CR-V wins is in the space utilization. Buyers get the space of a minivan with the look of an SUV. Most SUV’s give you the look of an SUV, but only the space of a small hatchback. It’s price competitive, gets decent mileage, and has a Honda badge. That’s enough for many people.

  • avatar
    gasser

    The CUV my daughter couldn’t kill. 2012 CRV EX (no leather or AWD). 40K on the odometer, only the bluetooth microphone went out and was replaced under warranty. No navigation and the back up camera works great. Mileage is in the mid to high 20s with driving the CRV only in horrible L.A. traffic. Still feets brand new. Even the Conti tires have another 10K left on them. Comfortable to drive, no outstanding deficiencies, handles like one person designed the whole piece. Worst thing: dealer service, slow and overpriced….that’s why we moved on to an independent. The CRV replaced an older Honda Accord which was totalled on the freeway. We’ve had a succession of Accords and they all felt like they gave us our money’s worth and more. The newer Accords (current model and preceeding one) are now so big that the CRV feels spritely. Compare the number of recalls on this new (2012) CRV with the new model of the Escape. I would only buy a first year of a new model car from Honda. Let others be the beta testers for the competitors.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      40k miles?

      Why shouldn’t it be uber reliable and still feel brand new? IT IS!

      Let us know how things are holding up at 1ook then 200k miles FFS.

    • 0 avatar
      duffman13

      40k? Set your bar a little bit higher. That’s lease turn-in mileage, not long-term unkillable mileage. In fact, there’s no way the Bluetooth mic should have failed in that time-frame either. And most SUV tires are designed with 50-60k in tire life.

      I’m not saying it’s not good, just that I’d expect any car to perform top that level in this day and age.

      • 0 avatar
        hgrunt

        My parents have a 2003 Accord V6, bought new.

        Currently 130k miles, recent timing belt, trans, PS flush and water pump service.

        The lighting on the center stack went out, and there’s a little softness in how it shifts, but otherwise, the car drives exactly the same as when it was new.

  • avatar
    thegamper

    I have not been in the new CR-V, but the greatest selling point as I recall from the previous models was that the CR-V is one of the rare vehicles that has a far larger interior than its exterior dimensions would suggest. I would imagine that is a key selling point. Simple, non-turbo engine offerings, simple trim configurations with few options and reputation for reliability would certainly help as well.

    Honda is probably not selling too many on looks alone, and from the Honda’s I have been in recently, I doubt the quality of interior materials correlate well with the price tag. My primary complaint of most of Honda’s recent offerings. I had a 2012 Odyssey which I leased for my wife, interior quality was a complaint for the duration of the ownership experience. However, mechanical issues were my primary complaint when we disposed of it.

  • avatar

    My big gripe is the C pillars. Ugly, and block the rear view. And, not only are you right about the intersecting lines, but they look good at Place D’Etoile, and on this car, not so much. (and I am predisposed to ***like*** Hondas. I drive one–my second.

    • 0 avatar
      kovakp

      I agree about the pillars; in fact, it’s my only gripe about this brilliantly polished vehicle, but are they “D” or “C”?

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        They’re D-pillars. There is a pillar separating the rear door and the back window, which, naturally, is smaller than it looks on the outside. That pillar is the C.

        • 0 avatar

          Rigt. I think the only current small crossover on the market that lacks D-pillars is the Sportage, since it eschews quarter-panel windows.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Augh, I’m still ticked off at Kia for what they did with the Sportage, especially when the previous gen was completely practical and almost a little fun. Before getting the CR-V, we test-drove a newer Sportage, and it was so claustrophobic inside thanks to the lack of C-pillar windows that I was visibly uncomfortable sitting in the back seat. I have balance/vertigo issues because of some ear problems early in life and I can easily get carsick if I don’t have a good view out of a moving vehicle.

  • avatar
    7402

    We were ready to buy one of these and made the appointment for a due diligence test drive fully intending to buy it and bring it home.

    The deal killer was the front passenger seat. The unadjustable lumbar support was in the wrong place for both of us (I’m tall, she’s short). It was not only uncomfortable, but both of us suffered lower back pain within ten minutes as passenger, pain that persisted for several hours.

  • avatar
    John R

    “• USD As-Tested Price: $33,775”

    I guess I’m out of touch, but that’s $3k past WRX money. Even if the Rex doesn’t come as a hatch I would try to make it work.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    Ford publishes figures for rear seat legroom with the front seat moved forward from its rearmost position. While most place the front seat in one position, Ford measures front seat legroom and then slides the seat forward and measures rear seat legroom, allowing their cars to produce legroom measurements rivaling far roomier competitors.

    http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=894

    This is why the cramped Escape has claimed space compatible with the roomy CR-V.

    • 0 avatar
      Quentin

      That explains a lot! Do they do this on the Focus as well? I’ve always considered the Golf and Focus to be in the same class, but the Golf felt massive in the back seats versus the Focus.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        I don’t know Quentin, but they apparently used the same ‘technique’ on the Fusion. They put some effort into rationalizing their deception, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they stick with it until there is a successful lawsuit.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      This is why I don’t see the point in reviewers reciting the legroom figures. If legroom is an important metric for someone’s vehicle purchase, it would be ridiculous to not physically sit in the car and evaluate the actual roominess. Even if all measurements were standardized, there are a lot of other factors that will influence how spacious a car feels.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      That doesn’t surprise me one bit. We rented an Escape two Christmases ago out at SD and everything this article said about it in comparison to our ’12 CR-V was true. Plus the gas tank was on the “wrong” (passenger) side for no apparent reason. Nooo thank you.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        All of the Ford C-platform and D-platform vehicles have the gas tank door on the passenger side. Why is this a problem?

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Because we’re ‘Muricans, and ‘Muricans deserve the fuel door on the driver’s side like the good Lord intended! FREEEDOOOOMMM!

          But really, it wasn’t like a make-it-or-break-it feature for me. It was just a problem that ticked off my cranky father, who had to drive the thing. Poor dear, he wasn’t used to balmy 70-degree weather in December.

          Everything regarding the legroom would be a dealbreaker, though.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            No, the legroom in the Escape isn’t very good. It’s better in my C-Max somehow. With the same seats and wheelbase, I cannot figure out how.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Maybe the C-Max’s lower floor height has something to do with it…? Does it feel more spacious if your knees are farther away from your chin? I’m genuinely curious.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            That makes sense. Since I’m 6’4″, the knee area is where I struggle to get legroom in the back seat. My knees hit lower in the C-Max than they do in the Escape. Also, the ceiling is higher, so there is more vertical space as well.

          • 0 avatar
            Dave M.

            You know there’s a little icon on the gas gauge telling you where the filler door is, right? My last 4 new cars have all had the filler on the passenger side…Nissan, Toyota, Isuzu and now the Subie. Never really thought about it…

      • 0 avatar

        I’m pretty used to that. Pretty much all European cars—including both my ’97 and ’14 Volkswagen—have the fuel filler on the passenger side. Oddly enough, our 2003 Sorento EX did as well…

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          I’ve had cars with fuel fillers on either side. Driver side is more convenient most of the time, but the passenger side filler comes in handy in busy stations, since it gives you a greater chance at having a pump available immediately. I’m happy that various cars use both sides, since it makes for less traffic in gas stations in general.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            But, but… if you pull in the other way does it matter?

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            Some gas stations are set up so it doesn’t matter, but the high volume gas stations here that combine tier 1 fuel with the best prices are set up with a definite traffic pattern. So is Costco. I also recall NJTP gas stations were the same.

        • 0 avatar
          Fred

          A few older cars have it in the center which means you can pull into any lane without issue.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        When Ford started putting the fuel filler door on the passenger side for US models the stated reason was that it was safer. The idea is that sideswipe style collisions are most frequent on the driver’s side and they could tear open the fuel filler pipe resulting in a gas spill. Now with one Ford we are seeing the euro derived cars in NA we are seeing Ford’s with driver’s side fuel doors again.

        The other rational is that if you run out of gas then you won’t be standing out in traffic to put gas in. Yeah you don’t see that much anymore, but Ford does include a funnel for their capless fuel filler cars.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          I’ve owned a few Fords and they were all on the passenger side, but none in the last few years.

          Both my Subie and my Pontiac are on the passenger’s side. I feel like with rentals I get it’s about half and half.

  • avatar
    KrohmDohm

    I can’t comment on the 2015 but I haved the 2012 CR-V my wife had for a couple years. Too top heavy, poor visibility, (esp the D pillars) and the FWD model was terrible in the snow. So, it’s now gone. Welcome back Subaru in the form of a Forester.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    In my are there are three default vehicles for single women over 30, Forester – Escape – CR-V.

  • avatar
    Chocolatedeath

    How would this compare to a Terran space wise. I bought my my the GMC and one of the reason was the backseat. I have sat in the CRV and others and the GMC gave the most space which was on of the things most important to her. The interiors where about the same quality and I believe the GMC has a bigger gas tank.

    • 0 avatar
      gasser

      I’ve seen very attractive lease rates on new Terrains with the 4 cylinder. The Terrain is about 600 lbs. heavier than the CRV. I’ m wondering how well it handles compared to the CRV. If one moves up to the V6 Terrain, it bumps the real world price up a lot, and gets lower mileage.

      • 0 avatar

        The Equinox and Terrain are borderline mid-sized. As you said, they are heavier than their competitors, and as such, the four-cylinder versions are dreadful. And I was horrified to discover that the Terrain Denali—which starts at over $35K—still demands another $2K to have the 3.6-liter V6.

    • 0 avatar
      formula m

      Shopped the GM twins and went with a 2014 CRV EX AWD. The GM’s are deceiving for rear leg/cargo space because the rear bench slides back and forth. The wheel well intrusions are large cheap plastic in the GM’s and with the seat back there is less room. All of those panels will rattle after 40,000mi. Neither GM or Honda used very good plastics back there but the Hondas felt supior in terms of fit and finish.

      It’s been pretty cold this winter here in Ontario. I imagine the 23+ mpg are about as bad as it gets. The new Honda has already been down to Florida this winter and the cost of fuel combined with going from a 4wd 03′ highlander to an AWD 14’CRV was $170 compared to $350 last year. Again gas is much cheaper now but that’s pretty big difference.

  • avatar
    carve

    I’d buy it if they made a sport one like the old RDX. Add a turbo, flat-handling suspension and SH-AWD for about $35k (same price as old RDX) and I’d be interested. Otherwise, this is a snooze-mobile transportation appliance. Great transportation, but boring as hell.

    • 0 avatar
      Toad

      You can pick up a new 2014 Murano for about $30k; it is a lot more vehicle than the CRV for less money. The Maxima trucklet is a lot of fun and the closeout pricing is right.

  • avatar
    hiptech

    As the owners of several multigenerational Accords purchased new (the oldest being an ’89 Accord SE-i) we keep our cars along time but don’t put many miles on them.

    Recently I find myself considering a CUV (our first) and have the CR-V on our radar. I was just at the local dealers this weekend looking at both the CR-V Touring and Santa Few Sport 2.0T and for the first time in many years have to admit that I do prefer the Hyundai.

    My biggest concern is will the SFS stand up over the long run as well?

    After looking at countless reviews on YT I’ve only seen one reviewer complain about fit & finish and mention a few rattles & squeaks, inconsistent heating for both the HVAC & Steering wheel heater perhaps this was an anamoly.

    I haven’t driven the CR-V yet (no Touring models available) but I do feel conflicted about some styling elements and it’s interior design but am willing to consider it. But inexplicably I’m just not drawn to it as I have been to our previous Hondas…

    • 0 avatar
      duffman13

      We have a Santa Fe Limited (the big one) with 30k on it now, and I have no negative comments for lit&finish over the time period at least. The climate control, seat heaters, and wheel heater are all still working as expected.

      Mileage is surprisingly good too, we’re averaging 21-23 mixed driving right now with a heavy car and the V6, I can’t speak for the 2.0T though.

  • avatar
    Alfisti

    At that price point are you not approaching the cost of a very nicely equipped Outback which does almost everything better than the CRV if you’re haulin family and famuily related stuff?

    • 0 avatar
      nickoo

      Subarus are terribly unreliable, expensive to maintain, and have cheapo interiors. All they have going for them that others do not is their superior awd system on manual equipped vehicles. I’d take the Honda every time.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    CR-V: Does most things better than most of its potential competitors.

    Outlander: Does most things worse than most of its potential competitors.

    Here are both ends of the CUV continuum.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    You know, for $3k more you’re in a 3.7 V6 AWD, and relatively loaded QX50. And I bet an Infiniti dealer is more willing to haggle than a Honda one.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Anything close to 33k is INSANITY for this wind up toy.

      There are real, solid, large and dare I say, premium riding/feeling vehicles that can be had for less (new Chrysler 300 base negotiated down to 27k or so).

      People that lay anywhere near sticker for these city runabouts are…

      …pick whatever adjective works best (mine is very harsh).

      • 0 avatar
        kovakp

        “People that lay anywhere near sticker for these city runabouts are…”

        Not in straitjackets?

      • 0 avatar
        davefromcalgary

        …are probably looking for a known and recommended do-it-all vehicle that comes with a reputation for reliability and capability, and not having the time or inclination to spend hours and days on the internet sifting through what is 90% opinion, trying to educate themselves on an what is arguably a very complex industry full of very different options, and who really dont care that the torque split to the rear wheels isn’t full time ala MT Subarus. And I have to think that to people who just need reliable comfortable, capable wheels, its probably worth paying full price if they get what they think they are paying for.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Right, DW, because a base Chrysler 300 has such excellent fuel economy, cavernous cargo and people carrying capacity, and proven reliability.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          I easily achieved 32mpg EASILY on the highway @ 75mph (pushing 80mph often) with a 2014 300 Pentastar V6 8 speed in St. Louis over a 3 day stretch. Admittedly, city driving had to be “mindful” to average better than 22mpg average, but we’re talking close to 300hp and close to 280/lbs of torque in a vehicle weighing much more than the toyish CR-V.

          I personally know the head Tech Rep (troubleshooter) for a four county area in Michigan having 4 million residents, working straight from FCA’s Auburn Hills HQ, who also has data on and is involved with fleet vehicles (including Michigan State Police Chargers), and we’re not in Chrysler/Dodge glass transmission territory anymore.

          I have no doubts, based on his direct comments (based on 1st hand data knowledge), as well as my other experiences, that any Chrysler/Dodge post-2013 with either a V8 or the excellent Pentastar and either the in-house ZF inspired or actual ZF tranny will be quite reliable long-term (assuming proper maintenance).

          The 300s/Chargers are tanks. The 300 is plush. They even manage to be economical with the Pentastar V6 and 8 speed.

          I’d take a 300 (or JGC) for 27-28ish k (or JGC Laredo 4×4 for 32k – it is that when shopped) over the wind up toy CR-V ANY DAYNOF THE WEEK.

          Honda is losing its soul (speaking of which, I’d take a stripper Soul at 17k or stripper Mazda CX-5 at 21k over the CR-V).

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        The first two vehicles my mother looked at when buying a car a few months ago was this and a Chrysler 200. Both stickered over $30K. She thought the CR-V felt cheap, had a poor engine, but drove like a car. It also had alot of room. She really liked the 200, but thought it was too expensive for a Chrysler that, “would fall apart in a few years.” Who’s crazier, someone buying a CR-V for $33K or someone buying a 200 for $36K?

        She bought a used 2012 Lincoln MKZ AWD, that had 20K miles, for well under $20K. She is not insane.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          Your mother is wise. The 2009-2012 MKZs are extremely nice/well made/reliable vehixles.

          You are wise for your purchase of your MKLincoln.

          Both absolutely shame the CR-V in nearly every category and I’d make the same choice.

          I’m not blowing smoke. 33k for this CR-V because of gadget stuffing is a price far too high to rationally justify even for Honda fanboys given the alternatives.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            *cough cough* official 28CL buy of the year *cough cough*

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I thought she would really like the CR-V, because I haven’t driven one in a long time. I mean, they sell a ton of them. I was surprised how much she disliked it. She thought the 200 was a much nicer vehicle. She even thought the Cherokee was better overall than the CR-V. She did think the CR-V drove more like a car than the Cherokee though.

            And 28 is right time and time again. People should pay him for his advice, for it is better than anything off Edmunds or TrueCar.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Thanks bball.

          • 0 avatar
            Dave M.

            In the current market $33k for a full zooted CR-V is not a bad deal. You know it’s going to go 10 years minimum. You won’t get that guarantee out of a 300 or JGC….

            I don’t see anyone cross shopping a 300 (although it is a fine car I’ll say…). The JGC possibly, but the equipment levels won’t be similar.

      • 0 avatar
        S2k Chris

        Which is why most people pay, what, $22-26k for an LX or EX? The Touring model is probably going to be 5-10% of total CR-V sales.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      The QX50 has much less interior space than a CR-V. It’s really not a practical family vehicle. It’s like a Q60 coupe on stilts.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I’d say it depends, if like most people your “cargo” consists of human beings the Infiniti is compelling.

      CR-V
      Passenger Volume (ft³) 104.1

      QX whateva
      Passenger Volume (ft³) 91.7

      But in terms of cargo area, the CR-V spanks the QX.

      CR-V
      Cargo Volume to Seat 2 (ft³) 37.2
      Cargo Volume to Seat 3 (ft³) 37.2
      Cargo Volume to Seat 1 (ft³) 70.9

      QX
      Cargo Volume to Seat 3 (ft³) 18.6
      Cargo Volume to Seat 1 (ft³) 47.4
      Cargo Volume to Seat 2 (ft³) 18.6

      http://www.thecarconnection.com/specifications/infiniti_qx50_2014_qx50_dimensions

      http://www.thecarconnection.com/specifications/honda_cr-v_2014_base_dimensions

  • avatar
    SC5door

    I’d pass on the touch screen…..really an up down button for the volume? Volume knob at minimum please.

    Did they ever do a software update to the AWD system after the Swedish slammed it?

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      I can’t tell from the pics here, but based on what I know from the ’12, there’s also an up/down button on the steering wheel. Which is really the only place it needs to be.

    • 0 avatar
      Frownsworth

      This is what ended up happening, for now:

      “Notably, the magazine ran into the same problem with the 2014 CR-V. Honda then released a software update, reprogramming the AWD control system to fix the problem, however the functionality appears to have reverted for the latest model year.”

      So it is a deliberate rationing of the rear differential torque load, due to engineering decisions. I don’t think this will be addressed through a software issue alone, it’ll have to be a new rear diff in combination as well.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Crossover makers keep getting better and better about working around the disadvantages of the format. This one has real interior space despite the giant wheelwells, acceptable handling despite the height, and reasonable MPG despite the frontal area.

    As they improve they are turning into the default cars for Americans, and your analogy of the current CR-V to older Accords is on target. Somehow people attach a positive image to virtually any crossover, no matter how tame and boring, in a way that they don’t with other inexpensive and practical vehicles. I guarantee you that 90% of buyers would tell you the CR-V was “nicer” than an Accord. And many of the rest might disagree but would still be thinking about the impression their vehicle makes on coworkers, neighbors, and friends.

  • avatar
    cdnsfan27

    I can’t see paying that much for a Honda CR-V. You can get an Audi Q3 for that price.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    Americans apparently like mediocrity these days. It’s evident in this and the Camry being so popular today. There is little to nothing this does particularly well other than a tad more space than it’s nearest CUV competitor. And for 33 large ones I could get into the new 2016 Kia Sorrento AWD which has gained a little length and has more interior space, a real engine in the form of the 293 HP 3.3 V6, can tow more and do more and seat more people for about the same coin.

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    Don’t get it.
    Good thing there are a lot of choices as to each their own taste.
    I test drove this slug last year before deciding on the Escape.
    OK…this thing is solid, it checks all the right boxes for doing all the daily stuff.
    It is just boring. It is sluggish.
    My wife and I dropped it from our list within minutes.
    It drove like it was 10 years behind the competition. It was dead feeling.
    We could not imagine driving from red light to red light day after day in this thing.
    It comes nowhere near the Escape in trill of daily driving. The Escape and its 2.0 ecoboost is a daily thrill and feels awesome on the MO mountain roads. We shudder to think of driving these roads in the Honda.
    Just how would you measure rear seat leg room? How would you set the front seat to be fair…other than set it all the way back or front and then measure.
    Sorry…but this thing is in no way a better CUV than the Escape.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      1)Superior packaging/roominess
      2)Superior efficiency
      3)Superior reliability (to be seen, but all my money is on the Honda)
      4)Superior resale

      It is in quite many important ways a superior CUV to the Escape.

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        inferior drive.
        Inferior steering.
        You say putting a box onto wheels is a superior achievement…I say you are nutty…or simply easy to impress or have a weird position on what superior means.
        Or you are my third grade English teacher?

      • 0 avatar
        formula m

        I worked for Ford, that interior is flashy I guess but also cheap and poor fit/finish. So many escapes and focus had uneven gaps on the steering wheel face cover. Also too many gimmicky features. Do I want my car to talk to me? A: No. Do I want my car to park itself? A: No. Do I want my trunk to open when I kick my leg? A: No. Do I want a turbo strapped to a small Ford 4cyl engine? A: Nope

        Ford’s sell well but they are a lot of flash and not so much substance

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          Then don’t order those things on your Escape. Now you have a 2.0 EB pocket rocket that can haul a reasonable amount of stuff, won’t get stuck in the snow and you did it all for less then $30K

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      You misunderstand. As CJinSD points out, Ford measures with the seats all the way back for maximum front legroom…then moves the seats forward for maximum rear legroom.
      http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=894

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        OK…so Ford does it in a way to give it the max. I read he story and still think it isn’t that bad.
        By the way…others do it in other places. For example, just try to find true cargo capacities. They are all over the place and everybody seems to use a special method.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    My sister owns an old Subaru Forester she bought new, and the height and AWD were very useful in snow in eastern Massachusetts. It so happens that there’s an “historic” blizzard going on now, where this review could have acquired a new dimension in auto reviews.

    Too bad you jumped the gun by a couple days, and used a Canadian locale. A lot of readers in the US northeast would have been very interested in how this vehicle handles an “historic” blizzard, not the dry Canadian snow, but the thick heavy snow of the Philly-Boston corridor that turns slushy at mid-day and then freezes overnight.

    The answer to the question, “How fast can this thing get me to Florida?” would have been eagerly awaited, after power got restored.

  • avatar
    Sob93

    Hate the gear shift placement on these Japanese vehicles even Lexus has them, Ugly, ugly, ugly and utility van-ish. I’d prefer on the column which I also hate on the GM trucks. A bit pricey for what you get. Test drives disclose a disconcerting vibration above 70-75 MPH from the CVT. In the west we drive 80-85 mph as a norm.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I agree.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      I find that with the minivan-style front armrests (which have sadly been axed for the ’15), my hand falls naturally to the gearshift. Much more comfortable for longer-than-10-minute trips than my sister’s Sportage, which has neither armrests nor a high-enough console to rest the elbow. But to each his own.

      • 0 avatar
        formula m

        The armrest on the seats combined with ’14 still having a conventional auto transmission was the reason for my purchase of a ’14 over a ’15 CRV. Went to the dealer to lease a ’14 but the ’15 had a higher residual value and made for a lesser payment as of Dec .2014. Happened the 2015 didn’t have armrests like our Highlander had on the seats. So then looked at purchasing a 2014 that had an extra $2800 off because it had been registered as a sale by the dealership on Oct.31st. Still only had 3km on it and qualified for 1.9% interest rate.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    In a crash you could win the Darwin award with a 22 year old Ford pickup. I would rather have the 2015 CRV with the modern safety equipment, but then no one is stopping you from being a candidate for the Darwin award.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • speedlaw: The first paragraph here is just classic.
  • multicam: Yeah, great post conundrum. I too raise a drink to you, though it’s a whiskey on the rocks, not...
  • Old_WRX: slavuta, “you don’t understand how similar USA [today] and USSR feel to me.” I know I...
  • mcs: “That massive amount of stuff tacked on all over the car is required for truly autonomous driving.”...
  • chicklet: Yes sir! “Studies show” 98% of journalists are hard left. They have a right to be, and they...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber