By on April 30, 2015

2016_HR_V_115

The 2016 Honda HR-V is set to hit showrooms May 15 with a beginning base price of $19,115.

Three trims will be available when the five-passenger compact crossover goes on sale – LX, EX and EX-L Navi – with price of admission beginning at $19,115 for the base LX model, $21,165 for the base EX, and $24,590 for the base EX-L Navi. Front- and all-wheel drive are available, though the latter only comes with a CVT. A six-speed manual directs power to the front corners alongside the optional CVT.

Power is generated by a 1.8-liter SOHC 16-valve i-VTEC four, creating 141 horsepower and 127 lb-ft of torque. Fully independent front and torsion-bar rear, electric power steering, and power-assisted anti-lock braking keep the crossover’s 17-inch alloys mounted on all-season tires in check.

Interior volume is split between 100.1 cubic feet of occupant space and up to 58.8 cubic feet of cargo room with help from a center-mounted fuel tank and configurable second-row seating. Fuel economy varies between 25/34/28 mpg with the LX and EX FWD models with manual, and 28/35/31 mpg with the LX, EX and EX-L Navi FWD models with CVT.

Other available features include: Bluetooth; one-touch turn signals; 7-inch touchscreen; rear privacy glass; hill-start assist; dual-stage, multiple-threshold front airbags; Honda LaneWatch; leather seating and trim; sat nav; paddle shifters for CVT models; and push-button electric parking brake.

[Photo credit: Honda]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

66 Comments on “2016 Honda HR-V Arriving May 15, Starting At $19,115...”


  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Coming soon to everywhere near you, the HRV! This will be a definite sales success, and will immediately cast a shadow over the ridiculous Encore.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      But can this HR-V be Trifecta Tuned? What about it’s figure eight and skid-pad times? These are the real questions the people have.

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      Today’s Globe & Mail review recommends the CVT over the manual.
      Honda at one time was famous for the quality of their manual shifters (S2000, Integra, etc). What gives or is it misdirection towards the more profitable model?

      At less than $20k with the Honda badge on it there are going to be line-ups to purchase this. Expect some gouging from dealers for the first few months.

      • 0 avatar
        Sam Hell Jr

        The quality of the stick may be the same as ever. The quality of the CVT has improved.

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        People can’t / don’t drive sticks anymore, thus the reason the CVT is now “recommended”. And your right they are going sell so many of these. Its everything people love about a Civic but in the CUV shape everyone want these days (for reasons I don’t get). This is the Civic Wagon just lifted off the ground and not as boxy.

        • 0 avatar
          Dave M.

          Better sight lines, more comfortable upright seating, higher off the ground…the same reasons crossover sales have exploded.

          I’ve always had a man-crush on the Civic. But at 6’3″, 200# and severe back pain, my legs splayed out in front of me has never been a comfortable position.

          These are going to sell well with conquest sales as well as internal competition (Civic, Fit & CR-V).

    • 0 avatar
      klossfam

      You aren’t kidding CoreyDL – the Encore and Trax are ridiculous. They look dumb, they are Daewoos and in the case of the Encore can have pricing you have to look at twice to believe. Was at the Buffalo Auto Show and saw a $34K list Encore…Mesmorized, I went downstairs and sat in a $35K Audi Q3 with much of the same equipment. I was thinking, who could possibly buy an Encore over the Audi? Hard to even believe they cost the same and are in the same segment (more or less).

      Considering the EX-L HR-V will be substantially less than a loaded Encore, I predict these will sell like proverbial hotcakes. The Honda Fit is a crazy exercise in useable space and the HR-V takes that up a notch…Honda will be happy they got in this segment with this vehicle.

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    Not impressed at $19.1k. I was hoping for a lower number, since the HR-V is about the only mini-CUV with a stick. The Mazda3 hatch at $18.5k is a better buy.

  • avatar

    I’m not at all a fan of the styling (I like the Mazda CX-3 quite a bit better), but this is a smart move from Honda. It should sell quite well, especially at that price point.

    As far as the inclusion of one-touch turn indicators, if they’re what I think they are, they’ve been widely available on many models for quite some time, especially European cars.

  • avatar
    Chan

    Priced right at the level of Fiat’s 500X. This segment is about to explode.

    Nevermind that this is about the size of the original CR-V.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Yes, with a MUCH better badge and sure resale value.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      First gen CR-V:
      Length: 178″
      Width: 70″
      Height: 66-70″
      WB: 103″

      HR-V:
      Length: 169″
      Width: 70″
      Height: 63″
      WB: 103″

      Current CR-V:
      Length: 178″
      Width: 71″
      Height: 65″
      WB: 103″

      Frankly, I’m surprised the HR-V’s wheelbase is so long. Usually a subcompact (CUV or car) is no more than 100″.

      EDIT: And now I see this was all posted farther down below. Welp.

      • 0 avatar

        I would have never believed that the bloated-looking newer CR-Vs are so close to the same size as the awkward but airy original. It’s like some kind of optical illusion.

  • avatar
    Fred

    One touch turn signals! Now if we could get anyone to actually signal a lane change.

  • avatar
    scrubnick

    The GF and I really wanted one of these but ended up with another Civic SI sedan due to lack of patience. The SI in sedan form is just practical enough to justify. Wish I could get the SI engine in the HR-V.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Funny how things come full circle. A3 is in spitting range of the B5 A4 that brought Audi back from the brink of death.

    Check this out.

    Wheelbase:
    1G CRV: 103″
    HRV: 102.8″

    Width:
    1G CRV: 70″
    HRV: 69.7″

    Height:
    1G CRV: 66-70″ depending on year/drivetrain
    HRV: 64″

    Admittedly the HRV is a lot shorter but packaging has become a lot more efficient. I.e. my 09 Civic is every bit as roomy as my 93 Accord was, and has an equally large (if not larger!) trunk, despite being about 10″ shorter in length. Doing things like separating the rear shock and spring and just general CAD design have enabled cars to be a lot more space efficient. This thing should be cool! Looking forward to the Acura variant.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      The 1g CRV is head and shoulder a more versatile vehicle than this HRV. Look at cargo space:

      1g CRV: 29.6 cu ft seats in place, 67.2 seats folded

      HRV: 24.3 cu ft in seats place, 58.8 seats folded

      That’s actually not a bad terrible by the HRV considering its “pooping dog” sloping hatch shape and lower height. But I’ll bet dollars to donuts the CRV has a much more usefully shaped cargo hold as well as a larger trunk entrance.

      Not to mention that first CRV actually had very respectable ground clearance at 8.1 inches, and could be had with a 5spd in RT4wd guise, in any trim.

      The HRV is definitely beats out that old CRV in terms of fuel economy, that’s about it.

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        I really doubt the old CR-V’s space is that much more useful. The difference in rear suspensions alone favors the HR-V. 1G CR-V had Honda’s phenomenal but highly space inefficient and complex rear 5-link, complete with a super long knuckle and upper arm that wrapped around the spring/strut. Much of the space lost is more likely in the lower roofline, but I will bet the space left is useful.

        And nobody misses RT4WD… the most people will need is to get out of the snow, and choppy reactive open diff AWD is more than enough for that. Hell FWD with decent snow tires is good enough for that.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          Good point on torsion beam rear being more space efficient vs the more ‘advanced’ traditional Honda multi-link rear.

          I still much prefer the upright space of the CRV with more vertical height and squared of hatch (good for carrying dogs).

          I’m not saying RT4wd was some sort of superior system, it was actually probably one of the first examples of the current viscous coupling systems that are the norm in the modern ‘tacked on’ segment of AWD.

          • 0 avatar
            sportyaccordy

            Maybe Honda will come back out with an Element replacement that is smaller. That sounds more your speed. They could base it on this and give it more headroom. Let it do battle with the Kia Soul and the other weird little hatches. AWD and high ground height with a square profile would put it in a unique position in the market.

      • 0 avatar
        probert

        You’ve never used a Fit – these things are 4 dimensional.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          Oh believe me I have, my family was an early adopter of a 2007 fit. Drove 4 hours to nj to buy a base stick shift model. The fit really is incredible, the interior dimensions relative to the tidy exterior is unbeatable. However as we see here, the hrv has exterior dimensions of a 1g crv including the spare, and yet it has inferior interior specs due to the lower and less upright greenhouse.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        In other news, a C-5 Galaxy has more cargo space than this thing. What a waste. As the CR-V is larger I would hope it has more room.

    • 0 avatar
      Zykotec

      Most of the length difference from a 1st gen CR-V and the new HR-V was made up of the CR-Vs sparetire sticking out at the back.
      It may come as a surprise to many that the latest CR-V does not occupy more space than the 1st gen, except that now the sides extend as far as the arches and wheels, and the rearend extends as far as the spare did in the past. Most of the CR-Vs bloat has happened on the inside of it. (reducing window size, growing the wheels and reducing the ground clearance has made it both look and feel a lot bigger though)

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Source on the spare tire being counted as the OAL of the vehicle? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just want to make sure you’re right.

        • 0 avatar
          Zykotec

          The japanese ‘Fullmark’ 2wd version which did not have the outside spare is listed as 172.6 inches in length. So roughly 4 inches shorter than one with the spare. (the Fullmark tailgates are rare and quite desireable among CR-V enthusiasts)
          http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1998/1119725/honda_cr-v_full_mark.html

  • avatar
    Tinn-Can

    Not sure if disappointing… My girlfriend really likes the fit, but I think the motor is a little too buzzy for all the highway miles she drives. I thought the civic motor in this would be better suited for that role, and a little extra height and size wouldn’t hurt too much… I don’t know if those things are worth the 3.5-4k premium over the Fit though…

    • 0 avatar
      sproc

      Different motor in the HR-V, at least in the US. We’re getting the Civic’s 1.8L, Fit has the 1.5L.

    • 0 avatar
      DeeDub

      It’s more the gearing (well, ratios anyway) of the transmission than the engine that makes the Fit buzzy at highways speeds. The HR-V could very well have the same problem regardless of what engine is in it.

  • avatar
    Aquineas

    Yeah, I don’t think Honda will sell many of these at all…

  • avatar
    Russycle

    Too bad you can’t get the 6-speed with AWD, but I guess Honda figures anyone who’ll pay for the extra drive wheels won’t mind shelling out for the CVT. They way they’ve been going, it’s a wonder they offer a manual at all.

    • 0 avatar

      You can get a manual with AWD in a Renegade. It’s not the end of manuals, at least not yet.

    • 0 avatar

      CUV owners are the epitome of point-and-go drivers, caring little about anything as long as they get from A to B before their Latte goes cold. The desire for stick-shifts in CUVs is probably the smallest fraction of the already small market for stick shifts in sedans.

      Hence I’m ok with Honda not offering a stick in this rolling road-clog if it means they save some development $$$’s for stick shifts in other cars and don’t use an infinitesimal take-up rate in the HRV as “proof” that nobody ever wants a stick shift.

  • avatar
    Boxofrain

    Isn’t the 2016 Civic getting a new engine? Why hasn’t that made it into the HR-V? Will this old Civic engine be a one year feature before the next model year of the HR-V?

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      Yeah it seems weird they aren’t using the new 1.5T engine in the HR-V, like they are in that new Fit-platform minivan they just released in Japan.

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    Well…a little disappointed in the MPG if the speed is so bad.
    Cr n Driver reporting 8.8 to 60. Seems slow. Guess that isn’t that slow IF you compare it to the Fit…thinking that is well over 10 seconds.

    However…somebody please tell me why this would be your pick over even a CX5, not even the soon to come CX3.? If the cost is ending up around 24/25K…isn’t that around the CX5? It was when I was looking and the offers given to me from Mazda.
    And the CX 5 has equal or better MPG>

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Does Honda have better reliability or resale value over a comparable Mazda?

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        Yes. People know what Honda makes and what they stand for, and they see the nice blue dealerships.

        They don’t know what Mazda makes, they think they “look weird,” and the only time they see the dealership is when they go buy weed in a bad part of town.

    • 0 avatar
      LectroByte

      Here in Western NC in the mountains where we salt the roads from about November through March to bring out that savory flavor, the Mazda will be a rusty used car in 4 years with visible rust in the quarter panels, the Honda will go for 8 or 9 before the rust bubbles appear.

  • avatar
    Synchromesh

    What a piece of trash. My old GS-R squeezed 170hp from a 1.8L mill and that was designed in the early 90s. I didn’t think Honda could sink lower in my eyes but they’re succeeding admirably. Certainly will not buy anything from them any time soon.

    • 0 avatar
      SunnyvaleCA

      That may be true, but this trucklet passes modern emissions standards and gets better EPA rated MPG (when using the same EPA tests) while attached to a relatively heavy brick.

    • 0 avatar
      calgarytek

      I beg to differ. The first generation HR-V (offered in Japan) had a higher curb weight then the current gen. 2 engines were offered – D16A and a D16W SOHC VTEC. None made more than 130 HP and certainly no more than 105 lbs/ft of torque.

      The L15B is a DOHC VTEC direct injected unit (most likely with offset crank) making 130 HP and 114 lbs/ft of torque with less displacement to work with. That aint bad for what’s likely to be a mass market engine. So, progress.

      I’m not sure what’s happening with the R series esp. whether Honda will offer an update similar to the current K series EarthDreams. In the past, the D series filled this void, being offered from 1.2L to 1.7L. Both the L EARTHDREAMS and the R series aren’t suited well for turbocharging (I’m thinking packaging issues with the head, engine internals). For now they’re sticking turbo’s on K series engines – esp the new K20C EARTHDREAMS VTEC TURBO.

      Finally, you got to compare apples to apples. Your GS-R made 170 HP. The nearest thing you can compare this to is the current Civic SI, which sucks. 200 HP @ 3000 lbs (mac struts) vs 170 HP @ 2500 lbs (double wishbones). Yeah your GSR is a fair bit superior.

      Perhaps there’s hope – in the sense that Honda’s redesigning the current CIVIC. Will there be a new crop of R series engines? Will it have a HIPERSTRUT type front suspension? Will it not weigh so freaking much?

    • 0 avatar
      Zykotec

      The situation was different back then. Japanese manufacturers were fighting over who could make the most brilliantly complicated car, while European manufacturers made really basic design that were tuned to work as good as (or better), though with increased man hours and costs pr car.
      Also, a 170 hp 1.8 (or 190 like in my brothers Type-R) doesn’t fit in with modern pollution standards, and people keep demanding low end torque to drive their autos and ACs in cars that are both safer and more quiet (as in mostly heavier) than a 90’s Honda.
      Also, since Honda (unlike everyone else) isn’t willing to give up on quality or reliability to keep costs down, they have to cut corners other places. (I’m sure the only reason Acuras use fake wood in their cars is because it last longer than real wood)

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    This is when the B&B amuses me.

    The AWD Encore at 25/34 and 138 HP and 148 pound feet of torque with a proper 6-speed auto is a hopelessly under powered pig. It’s Trax platform mate with identical specs and a near Honda base price is also over-priced.

    THE HR-V with more displacement yet delivering 10 more HP at the expense of almost 30 pound feet of torque, a CVT versus a proper six-speed, yet with the mild tuning and CVT gets worse highway MPG yet is the greatest thing to come to the segment.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      How about all three are terrible?

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      According to real world tests, the Encore averages 23 mpg, about worst in class. CR highlighted that fact when giving the Encore low marks.

      C&D got 24 mpg, despite “glacial” acceleration. Not to mention the Encore’s unfortunate looks.

      According to Ward’s: “Typical of Hondas, the HR-V easily meets or exceeds estimated fuel economy in real-world driving here. A FWD CVT model hits its estimated average, returning 31.0 mpg (7.6 L/100 km) in stop-and-go traffic. An AWD CVT model achieves the same figure in a longer, less-trafficked route from the Everglades, besting its 29-mpg (8.1 L/100-km) estimated average.”

    • 0 avatar
      LectroByte

      you say your Encore gets 34 mpg? Norm, is that you?

  • avatar
    Scoutdude

    I’m sure it will sell fairly well. However the question is will it be a financial success. I can see it being similar to the the new GM midsize trucks drawing the vast majority of buyers from people who in the past have bought the CR-V, Civic and to a lesser extent the Fit. If that is the case it is likely to be a net looser. Yeah there is probably more profit in it than a Fit but probably less than the CR-V and maybe a wash vs the Civic. By the time they amortize the certification costs it will cost them net profit.

  • avatar
    runs_on_h8raide

    Honda will have no problem selling these at all. I’ll tell you who should be afraid of this vehicle…Subaru. They cannot keep up with demand at certain times with their XV Crosstrek and Impreza hatch….guess where shoppers will go when they don’t want to wait 2-3 months for their Crosstrek or Impreza Hatch? Hello Honda. Maybe not the hardcore Subaru buyer, but those thinking they need AWD…this HRV is now in play at a great price point.

  • avatar
    Spartan

    I may be alone in this, but they should have called it the CR-V Sport.

  • avatar
    VW16v

    The HR-V should make the POS Fit obsolete. This only if the HR-V does not have the road noise and buzzy engine drone as in the fit.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      I don’t really understand how the Fit is a “POS.” Granted, it’s not a very good highway car, but I’d argue that the new 2015 model is at the top of the class in many ways, the biggest one being versatility.

      • 0 avatar
        VW16v

        Have you driven the 2015 Fit ? I never thought Honda could make such a thrashy sounding engine. Road noise, wind noise, even shutting the hood sounds tinny. Not much to like about car expect for the name, Honda. Driving it gives the feeling of impending doom. Even the Hyundai Accent feels more solid. The fit is just a cheap feeling and driving car.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          That’s the price paid for hollowing out the interior to the extreme I think. Compared to the king of cushy and quiet rides in the B-segment (Sonic), the Fit can actually fit adults in the back seats with room to spare, and has a fair amount more maximum cargo space, albeit less than the previous Fit. Overall I’d agree that it is a regression, aside from the increase in power. My parents have a bare bones stick shift 2007 that they’ve been incredibly pleased with in all respects. It basically has permanently folded rear seats as it is their farm hauler and runabout. Scrambles up snowed-in roads up hill like a billygoat with snow tires on, gets unbelievable real world mpg, and probably the lowest imaginable total cost of ownership of any car ever. In 8 years of ownership, it’s finally needed a new set of rotors/pads last year, a set of tires (not including snow tires), one change of gear oil, and oil and air filter changes. The resale on these is nothing short of insane, especially in Ithaca NY.

  • avatar
    frozenman

    I’m gonna hit the snooze button on this until they release the Acura (HDX?) version, preferably with the 2.4/8spd combo (even if it’s only fwd).

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • el scotto: “So it’s reasonable to assume that you’re a halfway decent cook then?” Said begrudgingly, even...
  • el scotto: Fox News manipulating and feeding the confirmational biases of old, poor, ignorant, Caucasians since 1996....
  • Runfromcheney: “This old car is going to be worth money someday!” Aka “Barrett Jackson...
  • el scotto: @eeeby When the video of a cop killing a handcuffed black man by choking him to death people have a good...
  • Arthur Dailey: In the mid 1980’s while driving on Highway 401 in Toronto, a brake drum ‘flew’ off a...

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