2016 Honda HR-V Review - The Farm Girl's Daughter

It’s no secret that Honda strives to offer a “Goldilocks-just-right” option in just about every segment — not too big, not too small; not too cheap, not too expensive; not too flashy, not too bland, and with a dollop of practicality on top. This formula has led to a lineup of sales successes with few exceptions. Oddly enough, Honda’s new-to-America HR-V is one of those exceptions.

Based on numbers from GoodCarBadCar, the Jeep Renegade is outselling the HR-V at a clip of 1.4:1 so far this year. Even Buick shifted more Encores — just — than Honda sold HR-Vs.

What gives? Have subcompact CUV shoppers forsaken Honda? Is the Renegade that good? Or is there some other explanation?

Although the HR-V has existed in other markets for a while, 2015 was the first year of American sales. Just as the Pilot is loosely based on the Accord, and the CR-V is loosely based on the Civic, the HR-V’s bones come courtesy of the Honda Fit.

Of course, Honda doesn’t condone GM-style platform sharing, so there’s little “Fit” visible to the naked eye. Honda didn’t just lift the Fit and add a rear differential. Instead, it stretched the Fit platform until there was almost nothing left of the original. Compared to the compact hatch, the HR-V is 9.1-inches longer, 2.8-inches wider, and 3.2-inches taller. But this isn’t just a bigger box on the same rollerskate, Honda also lengthened the wheelbase by 3.2 inches and grew the track by 2.1 inches up front and 2.6 in the back.

Thanks to the stretch job, the HR-V weighs 300 pounds more in front-wheel-drive trim than a comparable Fit, and the optional AWD system piles on another 162 pounds. In an attempt to compensate for the resulting 3,109-pound curb weight, Honda left the 1.5-liter four-cylinder behind and brought in the 1.8-liter four-pot from the last-generation Civic. Although the engine’s 141 horsepower and 127 lbs-ft of torque top the 130 horsepower and 114 lbs-ft in the Fit, the extra oomph isn’t enough to keep the power-to-weight balance in check.

LX trim shoppers can choose between a six-speed manual and a continuously variable transmission, but only in front-wheel-drive versions. Selecting AWD or any other trim level makes the CVT the only choice. As much as I like a manual transmission, the CVT is better suited to the HR-V, improving both acceleration and fuel economy. Fuel economy starts at 28 miles per gallon combined with the manual and jumps to 31 mpg combined with the CVT. Adding AWD to the CVT drops the average, but it’ll still beats the manual HR-V by 1 mpg.

While Jeep has gone for a rugged interpretation of ye olde Cherokee and Wrangler for its entry-level crossovers, Honda chose a style that looks like an inflated Fit. The look isn’t as sexy as Mazda’s CX-3, or as polarizing as Nissan’s Juke, but thankfully it’s not as frumpy as the Chevy Trax either. Instead, Honda played it safe with simple lines, a few curves, and a modestly boxy rear. While HR-Vs in other world markets get sexier headlamps, U.S.-bound models have to make do with halogen beams on every trim.

Instead of scaling down the CR-V’s interior or inflating the Fit to fit the larger HR-V, Honda chose a new theme that appears to be part Honda and part Audi 5000. The bank of air vents on the passenger side, it seems, is to make up for the lack of air vents in the rear of the cabin. Rear passengers didn’t complain, but folks sitting in the front seat had the occasional ice cream headache.

Hop in a base model and you’ll notice something unusual: there is less hard plastic in reach of the driver or front passenger than the competition. In the photo above, the light portions on the dash and doors is made of pleather. In lower end trims, that pleather is swapped out for fabric that matches the seats. The result is a cabin that feels more premium than the price tag would suggest, making it easily one of the more premium options in the segment.

Thanks to the taffy-pulling, the HR-V is more passenger friendly than the Fit, easily swallowing four adults in comfort with headroom to spare. Pop the rear hatch and you’ll find a cargo area that is 240-percent larger, 24.3 cubic feet, than that in Mazda’s CX-3. Thanks to a floor pan based off of the Fit hatchback, the rear seats flip and fold in a variety of different ways, making cargo carrying even more practical. Fold the rear seats down and you can access 58.8 cubic feet of widget storage, a figure that’s just 2 cubic feet shy of the much larger Hyundai Tucson. Unlike the baby Zoom-Zoom, the HR-V is capable of carrying our progeny while schlepping their stuff.

Our tester was the top-end EX-L trim, which meant we got heated leather seats, a touch-button single zone climate control system, navigation software, and satellite radio. Although the touchscreen infotainment system appears to be identical to the 2016 Civic’s system, it has more in common with the previous-generation Civic. This means you won’t find Apple CarPlay or Android Auto support in this cabin. Unfortunately, power seats or adjustable lumbar support are not offered on any trim.

With more weight to haul around per horsepower than the Fit or the Civic, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the HR-V is the slowest vehicle Honda has sold in the USA for some time. Although the CVT and AWD system add weight, the 9.5-second sprint to 60 is faster than the lighter model with the manual. Once upon a time, a 9.5 second run to 60 was perfectly acceptable. However, just four of the 220+ cars that I have driven over the past four years have been slower; the Toyota Yaris, Volkswagen e-Golf and Ram ProMaster City are inauspicious company for sure, but it takes a Mini Clubman just as long.

On the bright side, Honda’s CVT is simply the best cogless transmission you can buy. Transitions between high and low ratios are faster and crisper than any of the competition, making it feel more like a stepped automatic at times. “Manual shifts” using the optional shift paddles are more believable than any other CVT-equipped vehicle, but they won’t help the HR-V accelerate on freeway on-ramps any faster.

What makes the HR-V’s lackluster acceleration more vexing is the way the rest of the vehicle has been put together. The steering ratio is unexpectedly quick, the suspension is nearly impossible to upset, and there’s as much steering feedback as you find in the current Honda Fit. In fact, the HR-V logically drives just like a Fit that’s gained a few hundred pounds and has a hair more body roll. The softer side of the HR-V makes it well suited to the daily commute. Longer highway trips will be more comfortable in something like a CR-V, however, because the HR-V’s short wheelbase can make it “bob” a little on washboard pavement.

Plenty of cars out there need more shove, but few feel like they could handle it without modifications. The HR-V is different. While there’s more roll than the Mazda CX-3, it’s just as easy to throw the HR-V into a corner. There’s a similar level of steering feel between the two and, at 125 feet from 60 to zero, the HR-V actually stopped shorter than the baby Mazda. Let’s hope Honda finds a way to put the new Civic’s turbo engine under this hood.

Pricing starts at $20,115 (after destination) for the base model with a manual transmission. Honda’s CVT comes with an $800 option-box check and an extra $1,300 adds the AWD system. Unlike some of the competition, Honda offers just three different trim levels and keeps the price range narrow with just a $6,700 spread from the bottom to the top.

The HR-V isn’t the fastest, the sexiest, the best handling or the best off-road entry in this segment. On the other hand, it is one of the most practical, most comfortable and best-priced options. Jeep’s Renegade may have a low starting price, but it will be at least $1,500 more than the HR-V by the time you add air conditioning and an automatic transmission. To comparably equip the Renegade to an HR-V EX with the CVT, the Jeep will be $3,600 more. Likewise, the Mazda CX-3 and the Chevy Trax end up more expensive than a comparably equipped Honda by a decent margin.

By all appearances, the HR-V has what it takes to be a big deal in the subcompact crossover segment. It’s not terribly swift, but it excels at what the bulk of the shoppers in this segment say they are looking for: a smaller, cheaper CR-V with insane cargo carrying ability. So why isn’t it the top selling option in the segment? Because Honda literally can’t build them fast enough.

Until Mark Stevenson told me about Ward’s deep dive into Honda’s production numbers, I thought something was wrong with the world. As it turns out, Honda’s factory is building HR-Vs as fast as they can.

Production constraints aside, I have just one real issue with the HR-V: the CR-V. Honda’s middle child isn’t as easy to park, but it’s faster, more comfortable, more attractive, manages to hold even more luggage (65% more), and it’s nearly as efficient. While it’s also more expensive, I think the CR-V upgrade is worth every penny. If you’re shopping in this segment, my advice boils down to this: The HR-V is the more family-friendly and practical option, the CX-3 is more fun, — yet I’d probably buy the CR-V.

Honda provided the vehicle, insurance and one tank of gas for this review

Specifications as tested

0-30: 3.2 seconds

0-60: 9.5 seconds

1/4 mile: 16.8 seconds @ 84 mph