By on February 23, 2017

2017 Honda CR-V Touring Front 3/4, Image: © 2017 Timothy Cain

2017 Honda CR-V Touring

1.5-liter inline-four, turbo, DOHC (190 horsepower @ 5,600 rpm; 179 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm)

Continuously variable transmission, all-wheel drive

27 city / 33 highway / 29 combined (EPA Rating, MPG)

8.7 city / 7.2 highway / 8.0 combined (NRCan Rating, L/100km)

27.7 mpg [8.5 L/100 km] (Observed)

Base Price: $24,985 (U.S) / $28,515 (Canada)

As Tested: $34,635 (U.S.) / $39,915 (Canada)

Prices include $940 destination charge in the United States and $1,825 for freight, PDI, and A/C tax in Canada.

We’re all supposed to enjoy, or endure, an Alfa Romeo ownership experience at some point in our lives.

The 2017 Honda CR-V is diametrically opposed to everything the Alfa Romeo SZ stands for.

You’re supposed to drive a car that reveals its character through its flaws, as if a shifter that only slots into third at 2,755 rpm is somehow symbolic of soul.

The 2017 Honda CR-V doesn’t shift. At all.

You’re supposed to tell a great breakdown story that involves a leafy Vermont village, a greedy mechanic, and a 48-hour wait for a repair that resulted in the best drive ever with an ex-girlfriend who severed your relationship the next day.

Not a single word of that could possibly apply to a 2017 Honda CR-V.

You’re an enthusiast, you have taste, you’re vulnerable. We get it. But maybe you should just drive a Honda CR-V and accept the fact that boring, or dull, or soulless cars can be wonderfully effective ways of transporting one’s family.

I’m not thrilled by the realization. But I’m impressed by the all-new, fifth-generation Honda CR-V.

It’s an uncomfortable position for a car reviewer to be in: entirely unexcited yet with no compelling complaint to voice.

Tested here in top-end Touring trim with a $1,300 all-wheel-drive system, the new-for-2017 CR-V is a moderately powerful, surprisingly efficient, suitably spacious, and reasonably affordable family car.

So what’s the problem?

2017 Honda CR-V Touring Rear 3/4, Image: © 2017 Timothy Cain

Okay, so there’s a bit of wind noise at the A-pillar that’s manifested largely because road and engine noise is kept to a minimum.

At idle, the tiny 1.5-liter turbocharged four-cylinder is annoyingly ticky.

Though remedied by a volume knob, the CR-V’s infotainment unit is still slow — and slow to start up.

There’s no hi-po engine option like you’ll find in the Subaru Forester or Ford Escape or Kia Sportage.

The only transmission is a continuously variable, which, despite its unobtrusive manners in practice, will offend some as a matter of principle.

The Touring’s wheels are ghastly; the exterior overall is questionable.

But these complaints are, at worst, trivial and subjective. They are far from the kinds of deal-breaking issues that will stop the 2017 Honda CR-V from selling more often than it’s ever sold before. Already, in its first full month of availability, the new CR-V set a January sales record with 29,287 units, 10,000 more than American Honda typically sells in the first month of the year.

It doesn’t take a Mitsubishi Outlander product planner to understand the reasons behind the new CR-V’s success.

2017 Honda CR-V Touring Profile, Image: © 2017 Timothy Cain

Start inside.

With four-way lumbar support, the leather-clad CR-V Touring’s powered front seats (with driver’s side memory) are terrific. Honda prioritizes separate storage cubbies throughout the center console. While plenty of audio functions are primarily controlled through the touchscreen, most core climate functions are operated with large, high-mounted buttons. A heated steering wheel and three-stage heated seats — paired with adaptive cruise control, largely effective lane keeping assist, and excellent visibility — make for a relaxed environment.

Rear seat space, while aided by a nearly flat floor, may not impress a Honda Odyssey owner once child seats are installed in outboard positions. But these are class-leading quarters. Lower anchors are hidden behind the seatbacks, not between the back and lower cushion, but they’re easier to grab onto than expected.

2017 Honda CR-V Touring Interior, Image: © 2017 Timothy Cain

Cargo room, meanwhile, is another area where most top-selling rivals come up short. The CR-V has 2 percent more cargo volume than the Toyota RAV4, 14 percent more than the Subaru Forester, and 15 percent more than the Ford Escape. Only the Nissan Rogue measures up. Tossing in a wheels-on Baby Jogger Summit X3 and a Stiga GT Snowracer, with plenty of room to spare, revealed that this is a world away from the trunks of sedans. Not only are there 24 additional cubic feet of storage compared with an Accord, access is far more straightforward, as well.

Though American Honda’s basic CR-Vs in LX trim carry forward with the fourth-gen CR-V’s 2.4-liter four-cylinder (184 horsepower and 180 b-ft of torque), all other CR-Vs now use a more powerful version of the Civic’s turbocharged 1.5-liter. Compared with the 2.4, power is up by only six units, but the power peak arrives 800 rpm sooner.

More importantly, though torque is down by a single lb-ft to 179 in the 1.5T, peak torque is produced across a plateau from 2,o00-5,000 rpm, rather than peaking at 3,900 rpm as in the 2.4.

These are meaningful differences that cause the CR-V to feel as though it verges on quick. It helps that fuel economy climbs by two miles per gallon in both city and highway driving. Wearing Bridgestone Blizzaks during a particularly snowy week, the cold temperatures and mostly urban environment in which we drove this 2017 CR-V for 250 miles didn’t stop us from observing 28 miles per gallon.

That’s not the kind of number that will cause consumers to walk away from “SUVs” when fuel prices spike.

2017 Honda CR-V Touring interior detail, Image: © 2017 Timothy Cain

Nor are the 2017 CR-V’s improved handling and ride quality going to be the kind of character traits that have loyal utility vehicle buyers seeking out sedans in a quest for greater dynamism. Decidedly more nimble, the fifth-gen CR-V also negotiates rough roads with greater tolerance than the previous model — and most of its rivals, too. The steering is mostly devoid of life, but the rack is quick to react, and the CR-V won’t feel wronged by an attempt to hustle down your favourite road.

Though lacking the Mazda CX-5’s lust for corners and the Ford Escape’s delightful overall balance, the CR-V takes its place among the more athletic members of the segment while also being the most comfortable.

The CR-V is also distinctly more refined than the CX-5 and noticeably more spacious than the Escape.

Indeed, relative to all of its competitors, the CR-V is a leader in almost every objective facet.

The 2018 Honda Odyssey’s seemingly far superior infotainment unit would be an improvement. A (clearly unnecessary) powertrain option to compete with the Escape EcoBoost, Forester XT, and Sportage SX would be welcome. An exterior freshening for a premature 2018 model year refresh wouldn’t go amiss.

But after claiming all-time record annual sales with the old CR-V at the end of its tenure and outselling every other utility vehicle in America, Honda upped its game with an even more quiet, serene, powerful, efficient, and spacious CR-V for 2017.

In Touring trim, it’s also quite luxurious.

Yet where the new CR-V truly impresses is at the lower levels. A 2017 Honda CR-V EX AWD costs less than $29,000 and includes the 1.5T, the HondaSensing suite of safety gear, a power driver’s seat with four-way lumbar, heated front seats, dual-zone climate control, proximity access, 18-inch alloys, and a sunroof.

Alas, Honda does not include a four-clover badge or an ex-girlfriend with any of the CR-V’s trim levels.

Timothy Cain is the founder of, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures. Follow on Twitter @goodcarbadcar and on Facebook. This CR-V was loaned for the week by Honda Canada.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

66 Comments on “2017 Honda CR-V Touring AWD Review – Effective And Efficient, If Not Effervescent...”

  • avatar

    The Touring’s wheels are ghastly; the exterior overall is questionable.

    Just looking at the first picture I was trying to figure out where those aftermarket wheels came from. Those are pretty terrible.

  • avatar
    S2k Chris

    This is what I should/would drive if I was smart, practical, and logical. I am none of those things, thankfully.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    S2K Chris,
    Disagree. This is what you drive when you are like my aging mother and feel that AWD + all seasons is safer in occasional snowstorms than the roomy and comfortable FWD sedan that was also far cheaper to own and operate.

    What you drive if you are smart, practical, and logical is a CPO off-lease Accord EX for 12-17 grand less than this CR-V.

    • 0 avatar
      S2k Chris

      I have 1 young kid and 1 on the way, and never ending homeowner DIY jobs. A CRV makes more sense than my TSX, but again, not smart enough to do that. For my usage (buy and hold) the savings from buying used isn’t that significant. I like knowing I put all 120k+ miles on the car myself and it was maintained correctly.

    • 0 avatar

      I own an Accord and a Crv. While I like how the Accord drives better than the Crv, I can stuff a lot more cargo into the crv +AWD is nice. I also have a dealer installed hitch and roof rack for even more cargo capacity. It’s hard not to justify getting another CRV for holding more cargo.

  • avatar

    How long until I can’t buy a sedan anymore? #SedanDeathwatch

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    Much like the top trim Outback, I’m disappointed ventilated seats aren’t part of the package.

    Otherwise, they’re going to sell a lot of these….

  • avatar

    My cousin just got the EX on my recommendation. She was gonna get a RAV4. I sent her this:

    The CRV turbo gets considerably better mpg than the ecoboost – 5 mpg – and all non-hybrid others. Has more handling grip than the Mazda. Her friend got the 8th ranked Nissan.

    • 0 avatar

      I wouldn’t really go by Car and Driver as the end-all and be-all of car rankings. They do very, very little real-world testing with these vehicles. Weren’t they the ones that called that 2013 debacle of a Civic redesign “pretty much like the previous one”?

      • 0 avatar

        I don’t see any wording like that. They simply still expected better. They thought the styling and interior were improved, with the biggest upgrade being the suspension.

        “It wasn’t the 2012 Civic’s pokiness that bothered us most, though. It was the soft and numb suspension and steering responses that inspired us to describe it as “alarmingly Lincoln-like.”

        We’re delighted to report Honda has starched the suspension with thicker anti-roll bars (up 0.9 inch in front and 0.2 inch at the rear), stiffer springs (plus 15 percent front, 18 percent rear), and retuned dampers. The effect is almost transformative. The ride is now controlled without being harsh, imparting a distinctly less-cheap feeling. The company also quickened the steering ratio by 8 percent (from 16.1:1 to 14.9:1), which makes the Civic feel like the small, light car it is. Unfortunately, Honda has added zero percent additional feedback to the operation of the steering.

        But the 2013 Civic is 28 percent closer to the car Honda should have built in the first place. Baby steps, you know.”

        Nobody should consider any publication as the be-all, end-all. But they’re still my favorite of the bunch.

        I’d wait until the CR-V is actually featured in a comparison test to see where they stand on it. Until that happens, they’re mostly just distributing marketing material. I expect it to do well though, as the previous gen was their second favorite CUV on the market at the time, and Mr. Cain’s review suggests that they’ve made further progress.

        • 0 avatar

          “It wasn’t the 2012 Civic’s pokiness that bothered us most, though. It was the soft and numb suspension and steering responses that inspired us to describe it as “alarmingly Lincoln-like.”

          We’re delighted to report Honda has starched the suspension with thicker anti-roll bars (up 0.9 inch in front and 0.2 inch at the rear), stiffer springs (plus 15 percent front, 18 percent rear), and retuned dampers. The effect is almost transformative. The ride is now controlled without being harsh, imparting a distinctly less-cheap feeling. The company also quickened the steering ratio by 8 percent (from 16.1:1 to 14.9:1), which makes the Civic feel like the small, light car it is. Unfortunately, Honda has added zero percent additional feedback to the operation of the steering.”

          The few things that made my ’12 Civic excel as a commuter were a very powerful A/C system and a reasonably smooth ride. I come from Hondas of old that rattled kidneys, and for every day commuting the ’12 hit the sweet spot (severely lacking in noise insulation however). Funny how they get praised for basically stiffening it back up and ruining it for people that live in areas with marginal roads.

          • 0 avatar

            I think if Car and Driver tested vehicles on Western Canadian roads, the manufacturers would have to give them cars with sidewalls!

            I haven’t driven a 2012 or newer Civic, but the fifth, sixth, and eighth generation Civics had a nice balance of ride and handling for my tastes. Of course, they could always use more sidewall.

  • avatar

    I just bought one of these (a EX-L in Dark Blue) to replace my ’04 B5.5 1.8T M/T Passat Wagon (w/167k) and thought I might throw in my two cents:

    – This is the nicest car I’ve ever owned, and quite possibly the nicest I’ve ever personally driven. I know it’s not a luxury car, and nobody is going to confuse it with the isolation-booth qualities of a Lexus, but, for the money, I don’t see how they could have done much better.

    – The wheels in the EX-L aren’t quite as attention-getting (same basic design, but less contrasty), and the design has grown on me; I think they match the rest of the car well. Certainly can’t complain they are too generic!

    – The engine bay: The car looks supremely easy to service; the bay is apparently sized for a V6 for the next-gen RDX and/or a Hybrid powertrain for some future model year, so that little 1.5T has plenty of room. I can clearly see the whole intake manifold and fuel system, the steering rack, etc. behind there. And in front even a full turbocharger replacement does not look like it would take a contortionist or an engine pull. (Alternator access doesn’t look great though, it’s buried underneath the intake manifold.)

    – No complaints about the engine. It’s a little raspy, in a peppy way, when pushed, as you would expect with a 1.5 I4, but the turbo itself is unobtrusive; it can be neither heard nor felt. (I suspect it’s simply quiet, and spins up so quickly and well-matched to the transmission that it doesn’t draw attention to itself.) Yeah, you could ask for more power, in that general “MOAR POWER!!!!” kind of way, but if being honest with yourself, it’s perfectly adequate.

    – The transmission has been fine. It does a fair imitation of a conventional automatic when you put some lead into it, but still unobtrusively gives you the advantages of a CVT when you aren’t. (i.e. small tweaks to keep RPM in the most efficient band when in traffic or going up and down hills)

    – Handling: Nobody’s going to confuse it with a lifted Miata, but it certainly exudes a feeling of general confidence while being neither over-isolating nor harsh. (Here’s looking at you Mazda and the oversized wheels in the GT trim of the CX-5; Honda managed to resist the impulse to do this.)

    – The interior is spacious and wonderful. I am 6’2″, with legs so long that I cannot buy pants off the rack anywhere, and I can not only find a great seating position, I can sit behind myself. The seat is very adjustable and the memory feature quite welcome. (Though it should be noted that neither the lumbar nor mirrors are included.) The leather isn’t exactly calfskin-soft, but I get the impression it’ll be long-lasting.

    – The controls are simple and straightforward to operate; no complaints there.

    – The infotainment system isn’t great, but isn’t awful either. Now that I have my presets set up, I don’t miss the tuning knob. I spend most of my time in Android Auto anyway, which means it doesn’t really matter how good the built-in interface is or isn’t.

    – The driver-assist features seem to work acceptably well. The adaptive cruise is reasonably smooth and responsive to traffic conditions. On a well-marked freeway, Lane-Keep assist is accurate. I find on side-roads the lane/road departure warning has a few false alarms, but it’s not too obnoxious about it. Blind Spot Monitoring works as-advertised. Rear Cross-traffic Alert has already saved me from an idiot in a Home Depot parking lot.

    – The cargo space is large, and the flat load floor capacity huge. This is good and bad. The good? Instead of having to flip up the rear seat bottoms, they actually lower themselves out of the way of the seatback. The bad? Those bottoms lower themselves into space that used to be occupied with the fuel tank, which only holds 14 gal. (Also, the cargo area was poorly lit, with two whimpy bulbs getting swallowed whole by the black carpeting; a $10 upgrade to some LED bulbs off Amazon fixed that problem.)

    Okay, that was more than two cents… more like a quarter…

  • avatar

    Those wheels ARE ghastly, which sadly seems to be a trend lately, particularly at Honda. I just can’t wrap my head around it.
    I understand that resale and reliability are important, but when the upcoming CX-5 looks SO GOOD, and the Forester more capable, why would anyone ever pick this? I will say the interior is nice looking and seems luxurious though.

    • 0 avatar

      For God’s sake, this is the second comment in this thread saying, “I could never buy this car because the wheels are ugly.” Has anyone here ever heard of aftermarket wheels? I use ’em (in fact, I’ve used ’em on three different cars, including my current Honda). It’s OK to do so, honest.

  • avatar

    I suppose this is what you drive Monday through Friday, 0900-1700…and then pull out the 1974 2002 tii for weekend shenanigans. Have to agree on the wheels, not my taste, to be sure. But I can see why the CRV continues to be so popular. It does a majority of what a majority of drivers/owners need it to do. Day in and Day out.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    The CR-V is probably best in class for what it is intended to do. The interior looks nice, the driving position is good for tall people and that’s certainly not a given, it’s fairly quick and has surprisingly good fuel economy, doesn’t sacrifice any of the utilitarian aspects, and generally doesn’t have any standout flaws…aside from the unfortunate exterior styling Honda is going to town on.

    For $30-34K I’d rather get a V6 Accord, though. It would be far more enjoyable to operate and we’ve never had a problem taking our family of four on trips in our Altima.

    • 0 avatar

      Yes, the driving position is good for tall people. The converse of that is it is bad for short people. My wife and I really wanted to like the new CRV. As mentioned above, it has adequate power, the CVT is unobtrusive and the interior looks great. We passed on it though, because the passenger seat is too far off for the floor for my five foot zero wife and despite fiddling with the adjustable lumbar support for two minutes before the test drive my lower back was getting sore after 10 minutes. We went next door and purchased a CPO 2014 BMW X1. It is more comfortable for us than the CRV, quieter, faster yet gets better gas mileage, plus we got a better warranty and prepaid maintenance for $4,000 less than the CRV we drove. The CRV does have more equipment than the particular X1 we bought (backup camera, Apple apps) but I preferred the Harmon Kardon sound system in the BMW and my wife loves the panoramic sunroof.

      For most people, though, the CRV will be a better choice. FWIW we liked the CRV better than the 2017 X1.

  • avatar

    Those wheels are awful. While they’re not going to hurt overall sales, I wouldn’t be surprised if they impact the sales mix a bit as some people may be dissuaded from picking this particular trim level.

  • avatar

    This is the shape of cars of the future, and it speaks well of Honda’s product planning that Honda has clearly decided to throw all the engineering resources they’ve got at a car in this class.

    This car may be the best thing Honda has produced relative to the class since the jaw-droppingly good Accords of the late ’80s and early ’90s. Packaging: best in class. Fuel economy: among best in class. Interior: Clearly best-built in class. Driving experience for buyers who don’t care about dynamics: best in class. Styling: meh, but no one argued that a 1990 Accord was the most beautiful thing ever built, either.

    • 0 avatar

      I recently saw an Accord of that generation sitting in a driveway and it looked almost new. That was a beautiful car, especially the wagon version.

      This CR-V looks pretty good to me as well. I like it better than the previous generation at least.

  • avatar

    I’ve read this. Thank you. Going now to get Mazda CX9 – More car, less money.. Or even Highlander. 1.5 engine for 35K??? forget it. This is not Denmark

  • avatar

    On Sunday, we bought a 2015 CPO CR-V EX to replace our 2002 model. Wifey’s new car.

    I suppose I’m now a true TTAC’er…

    Why? Because I’m retiring, and that car is getting old, plus my Impala has 110K miles on it, and it seemed the right thing to do right now, while she’s still working.

    All I can say is that even though it isn’t new (manufactured March, 2015), it makes our old one feel like a tractor, plus we saved mucho $$$ over a new one.

    I can only imagine how the new ones are, especially the Touring trim level. Very nice review, well done!

  • avatar

    I know a bunch of you people like this thing but they seem to make it worse every iteration. Jeebus.

  • avatar

    Rear bumper paint does not match the rest of the car. It wouldn’t be so noticeable if the rear bumpers didn’t go so far up the side of the car. I’ve seen a few in person and everyone of them had discolored paint that didn’t match. This design looks like a total bean counter decision.

    • 0 avatar

      As someone coming from the rust belt, I can tell you that a Honda with the least possible metal in that area is ideal.

      It’ll cheapen repair costs, and won’t lead to cars having corrosion issues in 5 or 10 years time when lil Lisa used it as a learner and nudged a few posts and walls.

      Sure the colour is off a bit, but given the life these things will lead, it only makes sense.

  • avatar

    I have a 2016 CRV EX-L AWD. This review sounds a lot like my own. While it might be better, mine is (arguably) better looking.

    I love our CRV. The best thing about it is that it’ll transport all of us (me, wife, 20 month old son, nine year old Australian Shepherd) in comfort and safety. Plus it has a tonne of room to carry everything that we need.

  • avatar

    perfect for the 240 pound mid 30s foster care worker to go out on tinder dates with that will end up ghosting her after she puts out.

    not that id know or anything…

  • avatar

    What I really want, the next time around, is something like an RX, MKX, or maybe an XT5. But realistically, something like this CRV is probably what I’ll end up with. Not bad.

  • avatar
    Clueless Economist

    I can only imagine the discussion among the designers and engineers of the new CR-V.

    Engineer: “We are going to make the next CR-V so good while, of course, retaining its legendary soulless character that even your latest horrible design language won’t scare customers away.”

    Designer: “Challenge accepted!”

  • avatar

    I’m such a contrarian.

    This is the best looking CR-V, inside and out, by a wide margin (does it matter that the tailgate is so high that rear visibility is absent, as all CUVs, SUVs and many sedans and coupes now almost force people to rely on cameras and their console-mounted screens to even dare reverse the vehicle?).

    It is handsomely rugged, yet refined, exterior-wise, and the interior appears extraordinarily well-designed.

    In fact, that interior in highest level trim, rivals many CUVs costing much more, from fit/finish and color selection with contrasting wood and leather, and a supremely logical layout.

    I wonder how this same interior appears in the closer-to-base versions.

    The problems I have with this is are all powertrain related.

    I don’t appreciate Honda going down turbo road (and I don’t care how many Judas Priest Turbo Lovers tell me how turbochargers are the greatest invention since sliced bread, nor something along the lines of “[I]f anyone can do turbocharging in a daily, utilitarian, CUV commuter properly, it’s Honda!”).

    I don’t approve of the transmission (again, this will be met with rebuttals that “[I]f anyone can do a continuously variable transmission reliably and well, it’s Honda!”).

    Those powertrain concerns are big ones, and I’m willing to bet that Honda engineers, despite a proclivity for testing these things methodically pre-production, still have their fingers crossed that this new turbocharger, CVT route finally approved for use in daily, mass-volume vehicles such as this CR-V, does not start to drag their long-term dependability/durability scores down, that somehow manages to ding their well-established reputation for powertrain reliability/durability.

    • 0 avatar

      Did you see those links I left in the Cruze article?

    • 0 avatar

      “I don’t appreciate Honda going down turbo road (and I don’t care how many Judas Priest Turbo Lovers tell me how turbochargers are the greatest invention since sliced bread, nor something along the lines of “[I]f anyone can do turbocharging in a daily, utilitarian, CUV commuter properly, it’s Honda!”).”

      I live at 6,600 feet above sea level. Turbos are essential at this altitude. They help with everything from merging onto freeways to getting around slow drivers in mountain passes. We had a Honda Accord Sport for a couple of years until we moved from Texas to Colorado. It was a fast car at sea level but gutless here in the Rockies.

      Different people have different needs.

    • 0 avatar

      After an hour, I am beginning to despise the exterior (still love the interior, though).

      The longer I stare at the exterior, the MOAR Nissan-ish Rogue One Overwrought it is looking (it really does look like some Nissan CUV – look at the hood, fender flares etc.).

      And yes, the wheels and mismatched paint are starting to trigger me, too.

  • avatar

    I find the styling to be by far the best of any CR-V, ever. That might seem damning with faint praise, but I also think it looks pretty good overall – finally “finished”, whereas all the previous iterations looked like they stopped designing before the designing was actually done…

    It’s sure to continue selling by the bazillions.

    On a related note, I finally drove a CX-5 the other day, and wasn’t really impressed. Handles well, but lacking in refinement and comfort. I’d rather have an Escape, which is a nicely-polished overall package.

  • avatar

    if I’m going to drive something dull and uninspiring, I might as well get a Prius. I see no reason to drive most any CUV (except maybe the Mazda) over that. A Prius V has almost the same cargo space as this CR-V. I can use the gas savings to find other ways to entertain myself since apparently my car won’t do it for me. The Prius is the most logical, rational vehicle on the market, not this.

  • avatar
    Minnesota Nice

    My mom and dad were looking to replace their 2005 Chevy Trailblazer with 250K miles on it.

    They’re extremely pro-domestic – I’m the only one in my family that drives a foreign badge. I pushed my mom to look t the CR-V, even though she was sold on the Jeep Cherokee.

    We test drove the Cherokee Limited with the V6. Honestly, I was very impressed. I thought the interior was well-appointed, intuitive, and comfortable, though a bit crowded and lacking in cargo space.

    My mom was given a TrueCar quote of $25K for one with an MSRP of about $34K. When we got to the dealership, it was early February and they refused to honor it. They jerked us around for an hour refusing to give any leeway on pricing. At $25K, it was a lot of car. For $34K, I could no longer justify it (I played the negotiation for my parents).

    We ended up getting up and walking it after the sales manager got condescending with me.

    Two hours later, my parents drove off the lot with a brand new White Orchid 2017 CR-V EX-L.

    I gotta tell you, it’s an amazing vehicle or what it is designed for. It’s cavernous and versatile inside, rear-seat legroom is crazy, and the interior is beautifullly appointed with extremely comfortable seats.

    The infotainment system is almost identical to the one in my Civic Touring, and has a nasty learning curve, but it gets easier with practice.

    We got about $1K off MSRP, which I was happy with given dealers here aren’t even talking discounts on them. For $31K, I think my parents got the best of all worlds with the CR-V. I simply couldn’t justify $34K on a Jeep without leather and a sunroof with horrific fuel economy.

  • avatar

    So what’s with the front bumper in the top pic? Drove it through a snowbnk and pushed it out of alignment? Notice it is better aligned but has a white line in subsequent pics.

  • avatar

    Say what you want, the CR-V is best selling compact CUV in the U.S. for 20 years straight! So take that! I don’t like the look of the last generation nor 2017 CR-V, but I am consider buying one because it is a Honda!

    Reliability and long lasting means a lot to me! I am a DIY auto mechanic and this near perfect from where I see it! Cheap parts and tons of help in repairing this in 10-15 years from now! Just perfect for me!

  • avatar

    “A 2017 Honda CR-V EX AWD costs less than $29,000…”

    Where? My research shows the invoice for this car is $32,556 with no options. What am I missing?

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • ttacgreg: Just personal experience here. Last year I had the good fortune of buying two new cars. In both cases I...
  • ToolGuy: jmo2 has the wisdom.
  • ToolGuy: I generally don’t like getting parts from Amazon (tools yes, materials yes, supplies yes, parts no)....
  • Beelzebubba: The most important question that hasn’t been asked….what color interior could possibly match...
  • Number6: Lemme guess, you voted for Reagan’s second term?

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber