Spy photos of the next-generation Honda CR-V have just rolled in from rural Ohio.
The camo-clad vehicle can’t hide the extensively restyled body planned for the 2018 model year. Honda’s plan is to grow the size of the strong-selling crossover, while bringing the whole package upscale.
Most noticeable on this test mule are taillights that wrap around the lower edges of the rear window, reminiscent of newer Honda models like the HR-V.
Rumors abound of a seven-seat version of the CR-V, which would need an increase in length over its current dimensions to pull off. Unfortunately, this vehicle had its rearmost side windows covered, so there was no peak of a third row.
Honda will likely field a turbocharged four cylinder in the new CR-V, with rumors of a possible plug-in hybrid variant. The 2018 CR-V is expected to be available in the middle of 2017.
[Image: © 2016 Spiedbilde/The Truth About Cars]
Yawwwwwwwwn.
If they hadn’t disguised it no one would of even noticed.
YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWN
Another facelift with another turbocharged 4-cylinder.
It’ll be the perfect choice for the low-end appliance crossover
Toyota is far behind in turbochargers for the masses.
No one wants turbocharging. More boost requires more fuel.
If they’d simply put adequately SIZED ENGINES IN THEIR CARS, turbos would be unnecessary.
A vehicle like this needs a small displacement v6 or a large displacement 4-cylinder or diesel.
Making smaller and smaller displacement engines with turbos is just causing diminishing returns:
@BTSR: You do realize that every diesel engine in today’s passenger vehicles and trucks are turbo charged?
Turbocharging a diesel spreads the torque and horsepower because typically, diesels have truncated power bands.
Yes I do realize this.
Thing is, in a small car, a regular diesel provides more power in the low end and more fuel economy at the cost of more expensive fuel – at least in America.
BTSR…. turbos do the same things for gas motors. Just like the superchargers in your HELLCATS.
While acutely aware that nobody is allowed to have a differing opinion from yours lest they be bombarded with your keyboard of fury, I find myself with a differing opinion from you.
A smaller displacement turbo-4 would achieve the torque that most people cant seem to figure out how to use anyway when accelerating to freeway speeds (usually after merging on the freeway at 10 mph below prevailing speed), yet cruise with better em-pee-gees than a larger displacement 4. In theory, it is what the people will want when conducting a serious test drive of one 2-mile business loop of choice by the salesperson.
And Honda has a colorful history with their transmission reliability when mated to v6’s. I would steer clear of any V6 until the last generation/model year.
Therefore, if I was shopping for a CR-V (which i’m not), the turbo 4 would be my engine of choice.
Full disclosure to make you happy: I have a 200,000+ mile 4wd civic wagon with 87 whp 1.6 4 cylinder. Oh, and a ’63 Thunderbird with a built FE390 for weekends.
I would much prefer a CR-V with a 2.0t rather than the current 2.4l 4-cylinder. As evidenced by the Civic’s increase in usable performance with the 1.5t, I think a bit more oomph under 5K RPM is just what the CR-V needs.
This. I have an 08 Element with the same powertrain as most CR-V’s still on the road today (K24A8 and 5AT) I hate the fact that I need 4000 rpm to get any sort of urgency out of it. The engine’s smooth enough but it sounds like a rock tumbler gargling nails, and takes forever to get into the powerband, (typical of all Elements). I’m perfectly happy spinning my VFR like a skitzophrenic hamster on a wheel but man if I could have more torque, less noise and lower RPM in my daily, that’d be great. N/A motors do not suit that type of vehicle whatsoever,
…No one wants turbocharging…
Ya, no one wants it. That’s why BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, Audi, Lincoln, Cadillac, and Jaguar all offer turbocharged vehicles.
It’s the constant need, or wish, of the automakers to prostrate themselves at the altar of “green” driving turdos. “Gaming” CAFE at the expense of real-world usability and increased maintenance costs for the consumer.
The automotive equivalent of “teaching to the test.”
Precisely. Nobody does want it, it is being reframed as something “new”, “good”, or “high tech”. You have no choice in the matter, they build what they want and talk you into why you’re buying it.
Noone sane wants turbocharging :)
Even Toyota is belated turning to turbocharging.
Instead of straight EVs or even PHEVs, we’ll probably see ICE continue to dominate with electric turbos assisted by electric motors (such as an e-AWD system).
They are getting rid of the V6 in the highest Camry trims. Honda is turdocharging the low-end Accord trims; fortunately, the “big kahuna” for the Temple Of VTEC (VTEC.com) recently asked a Honda bigwig about the status of the J35 V6 in the Accord for the 10th-Gen, and the feedback was positive.
If Honda can do a hybrid Accord with a battery pack that allows most of the trunk space of a non-hybrid vehicle (including fold-down seats), I’d be all over it! (Of course, it’d have to do 0-80 in the identical time to the V6, if not faster!) At this point, my guess is that they can’t quite yet, so gimme MAD V6 VTEC POWAH until then!
Havent read anywhere that Toyota has decided on getting rid of its V6 yet. Just still thinking about it.
It’s coming. My guess is that 2016 is the last model-year of the V6 Camry.
It makes no sense to charge >$32K for a V6 Camry when you can buy a V6 Avalon for roughly the same amount of money with more room and higher quality trim.
My best friend bought a 2015 Avalon for less than $30K, plus tt&l. It’s like a Camry on steroids. Really nice!
Looks like the CR-V is going to continue to dominate the segment.
The Theta twins do so in sales, Equinox and Terrain.
I don’t know why. The Equinox and Terrain suck. The only thing they have going for them is an abundance of rear legroom versus competitors, but they are otherwise plasticky, poorly-styled…and at the bottom of my list whenever I talk people through compact crossovers they should by.
Um…yeah. Wife loves hers and I’d take the Theta’s styling over Honda’s duck-billed platypus on wheels.
wives are dumb
The CR-V does kind of look like a platypus, now that you mention it…haha
Thank you. Had one as a rental last week (Terrain). It DID suck. I don’t understand why people keep buying them.
I think the Equinox and Terrain sell well for the same reason the outgoing Malibu did: GM has lots and lots of dealers.
As for the CR-V, I think it’s always been good at its mission. I’m unhappy to hear about a move upmarket because that inevitably means its always-affordable price, traditionally low to mid $20s with reasonable equipment, will be marching north as well. The market already has plenty enough SUVs like that.
Real comfy, lotsa legroom, available V6, and tons of cash on the hood.
Wow. The Thetas outsold the the CR-V by a whopping 45k units in 2015. Very dominating. Never mind the fact that this required two unique body styles, two separate marketing campaigns and about 5x as many dealers for GM to pull this off. And that’s not accounting the probably 25%+ fleet sales, compared to the CR-V’s statistically insignificant fleet percentage…
On the other hand, I’m impressed that GM does this well with the Thetas when they’ve been unchanged since 2009.
Assume a 20% discount at the opening handshake.
Yes.
When was the last time you saw advertising for the Terrain?
The rear gate is a bit like the Tucson. Not a fan of the milk jug mufflers in the back, hopefully there’s a rear valance piece missing on this PP vehicle that would cover it.
This picture is from a very low angle. They won’t look so big if you’re at human height.
Try looking at the photo of it following the Escape, they’re huge.
At least the tips are exposed; HondAcura was hiding them on several vehicles of late.
I just showed this to my coworker, who has a 2015 CR-V EX. He likes what he can see of it, which is a good thing. The CR-V has a lot of repeat buyers. Honda did a really good job facelifting the CR-V for 2015, but hopefully some of the new Civic’s upscale features and driving-feel make their way to the redesigned CR-V.
The CVT isn’t as good as the one in the Accord — nice enough, but a bit too much “rubber-band” effects. Just a software tweak away from nailing it, and unlike the Accord, I don’t believe they’re having to replace them in droves, so that’s a good sign!
Didnt realize Honda was having issues with it CVT.
Any rumours about a hybrid? It seems like Honda has finally gotten the hybrid recipe right, why not pull a RAV4 and sell a hybrid version as well? It’s certainly worked well for Toyota’s otherwise completely unimpressive CUV.
Saw a current gen CR-V parked yesterday and notice an odd seam in the liftgate.
Does the current CR-V have a two-piece liftgate with a mini tailgate? That is how it looked.
No it’s a plastic trim piece.
Ugh – so that’s a big fail in my book.
I’m fairly certain the seam is there so owners only need to replace the bottom of the tailgate if the vehicle’s rear-ended. It’s meant to lower repair costs.
Any chance for a 6-speed manual?
Why? The chassis will still be completely inert. A manual will not make this thing fun to drive.
A manual usually makes everything less horrible to drive, if not exactly fun.
There is about a $Texas$ wide gap between less horrible and fun. Nobody would choose this in stickshift over a Civic hatch.
People in areas snowy enough to prefer some added ground clearance… The manual Forrester has a decent take rate, despite Subie’s manuals being about 55 orders of magnitude less tactile than Honda’s. Ditto for manual Tacos. And even Cummins Rams, hardly the most agile of vehicles.
Added bonus of a manual in an AWD vehicle that presumably will see snow, especially when the other transmission choice is a CVT, is that there is less risk of overheating and damaging the transmission when rocking it out of a snow bank.
Not a lot of camo for a vehicle that won’t debut for a year. Especially for Honda, who seems to drag out their reveals longer than any other automatic. Looks they recycled the same ugly stick they beat the current model with.
I like the CR-Vs style – kind of “euro” from the back. Can’t beat that luggage space….
Had one as a dealer loaner while my Accord was in getting her biennial detail a year ago, and was taken with the cargo room.
The MPGs were a bit low for my taste, and I already mentioned the CVT up-thread. Take care of those issues, and bring the overall refinement to Accord/Pilot-level, and I might consider it next time around.
As previously reported, seems like the next CR-V has indeed been “Sorento-sized.”
Hopefully this allows the HR-V to grow to a usable size.
And refinement, if Honda is smart.
As it sits, the HR-V and Fit are miles apart in that regard, though they share the same chassis.
Currently driving a 2015 CR-V LX (push button ignition in the higher trims was a no-go for me.) This looks about the same size, if anything judging from the size of the back doors, might be even a tad shorter. There is no way that they could pull of a third row there. Double muffler looks like something different is going on under the hood.
About the 2.4 engine and the CVT: My CR-V replaced a 1995.5 XJ Cherokee with the 4.0 straight 6 (and close to 350K miles). Different cars, but the CR-V is much faster than the Cherokee and handles miles better. In the stripped down LX trim, 0-60 is close to mid 7 seconds, faster than the Cherokee, and 24 mph commuting / 31 highway, compared to 17/21 with the Jeep, is significant. Cannot see anyone needing more oomph in this car for the use of this car. It is not a towing/snow plowing machine, but it is an AWD wagon on stilts…
Another thing which struck me while on the road earlier, since the Civic is nearly the size of the Accord now, naturally CR-V will match.
It seems odd to think it will be a 2018 model. We are almost-mid 2016 without any hints of a 2017 model.
I went to my local dealership last week and the seller told me he was told that the 2017 model would be completely different. If it’s the case, I don’t think Honda will sell 2016 models until mid-2017, so I hope this model is coming in the automn as a 2017.
Having driven different Honda autos and Suvs….I would not buy one of the new ones, today. Their tranny are not ready for prime time. Just look at the lawsuits filed.
My CR-v is very hard noisy plasticity interior. Main features is all the road noise that one gets as you go down the road, sorta like riding a motorcycle as the wind whistles past your ears.
Lot of other makes and models that have left Honda in the dust.
One of my kids are in market for a new auto and they have Crossed Honda off their list of ones to buy. Honda needs to find its mojo, again.