It's all a bit mumsnet isn't it? Not really us.
Did you know that the CR-V coffee holders are especially sized to hold Nespresso pixie cups?
This wasn't the car I was expecting. If I’d been paying attention I would have known that the new twin-turbo, 9-speed auto, 4WD 1.6L diesel turbo CR-V isn’t on the UK press fleet yet. What rolled up outside Vulture Central was the decidedly white-bread 2WD i-DTEC single-turbo 1.6L diesel. honda crv 1 Honda's CR-V is a big …
If that is the case then this is a complete deal breaker for me.
I'm looking at replacing my 11yr old car with something like this but if it can't handle man sized coffee cups then what were the designers thingking of?
I wonder what sort of expression would appear on the salemsans face when I tell him that this bit of stupidity will cost him a sale?
All the latest crop of supposed SUVs just don't look 4x4ish enough for me.
Even in the US you ask for a big SUV rental and end up with some 2WD rounded bodywork Europeanized blob. Pointless things.
Eco-Assist sound like the "Econoscope" (?) you used to get in non-turbo diesel Peugeots from 30 years ago. Jesus.
Err... Your could have said it shorter. In two words: "Ballroom 4x4." It says anything and everything there is to be said about the CRV (that is how they call it on the Balkans).
No thanks, I will stick to my agricultural equipment - I drive a real 4x4 - an Isuzu Denver. It is no worse on the road. I have driven it at 90mph on the Autobahn - it is quiet, composed and comfortable for everyone inside. I have driven a diesel Honda along the same route and at the same speeds in previous years and it was distinctly rattly and felt like it is going to take off. The Denver can also can do real offroad and tow a broken down Ballroom 4x4 up 12% gradient without noticing (been there done that). The only downside is that it is difficult to get mileage better than 38mpg on the older model (the newer one can do 46).
Really, they should call these use UVs, because really they're Utility Vehicles. In order to be called a Sport Utility Vehicle, it should be required to manage a certain degree of off-road performance (Land Rover, et al), and/or speed (0-60 in under 7s). Can't see where the Sport comes in, otherwise.
I wonder at the longevity of the tiny turbo boosted engines everyone is slapping into big cars these days; especially a 1.6D like this.
For the record, my sister drives this model, and although she keeps crowing about the mpg, even she admits it isnt that fast - and this from someone who has been driving a 2litre TDI Shalgambra for the last 6 years.
If you manage to see the engineering drawings for these small engines you will realise they are from a different world from the old 1.6l van Diesels and the like. CAD, modern alloys and casting/machining can eliminate hot spots, ensure dimensional stability at different temperatures, and rule out the many, many flaws in old engines. What then matters, basically, is lubrication and rubbing speed. So long as the oil film is maintained, and the oil stays clean, the BMEP makes little difference to the life.
On the other hand small engines means less vibration, less mass to haul around, quicker rise to operating temperature, less friction and so less power wasted (especially at tickover). Turbo charging means smaller valves so better thermal management in the head and less power wasted driving the camshaft.
Technology advances. Engine design may not follow Moore's law but currently the rate of progress is phenomenal.
Well, Honda have always been an engine company first... people then asked them nicely to put wheels & things to complete the picture
I think getting a 1.6 turbodiesel to move a CR-V is a much better idea than those 1.4 turbopetrol pepper-pot engines that come with some Sharans, I was worried they'd burn out before the warranty, never mind aspiring to longevity...
I chose a 4-WD previous CR-V with a 2 litre petrol engine, as it had a 40% discount from new, rather than opt for the newer 2WD version at same price point. Honda, in Italy, has traditionally been seen as a weird foreign car-brand , so they have excellent special offers from time to time.
What most impressed me, when my buying intentions met Italian 'creative car sales-droid' problems, was that a quick email to Tokyo explaining my situation resulted after about 30 minutes in all problems disappearing! Quality, and it has a real car-radio with Long Wave for R4, which sometimes comes over the Alps
"Well, Honda have always been an engine company first"
Honda started off making piston rings, then realised he could do better on the rest of the engine. I approve of Honda, he was a real maverick who rattled the Japanese establishment.
But the most Honda of all Honda engines is the single cylinder sloper with automatic clutch gearbox that came in 50 and 90cc variants, and powered vast numbers of small two wheelers. The layout has stayed the same despite a change to OHC. The Chinese make copies of those engines and have bored and stroked them to 160cc. In terms of numbers produced, perhaps even in total cylinder count, it must surely be the most successful engine design in the world.
This post has been deleted by its author
"...further from help..."
You assume one must be headed into the snowy woods. But if one already lives in the snowy woods, then 4WD might help one get closer to help.
My big Mercedes has 4Matic AWD and Nokian studded tires. I can drive up and down ice covered hilly roads very nicely. Driving has been the most relaxing aspect of a very tough winter. AWD is part of it. Studded tires is the other.
"But if one already lives in the snowy woods, then 4WD might help one get closer to help."
I currently live in the south of england. Last time there was substantial snowfall (about 6 years ago) I strapped a set of chains on my shitty little Pug 106 diesel and chugged along the same roads and hills I use for my commute, whilst marvelling at how creatively people can beach 4wds. The number of dirty looks I got whilst passing 4wds uselessly wheelspinning on steep hills were legion.
4WD != better brakes or handling. If you think you need it on the road then you're doing it wrong (unless you've got some insane HP Matchbox racer that needs 4wd to keep from wheelspinning when you boot it at 60mph..
There's a need and a place for 4wd in daily drivers and neither of those are applicable to 99.9% of 4wd sales in the UK.
This post has been deleted by its author
Get a Skoda Octavia Scout (or even a 4x4) and you'll get the same carrying capacity, better off-road (if you need it), probably better economy, much better performance, all wrapped up in a car that is fun to drive - and cheaper to buy! If you don't want a Skoda, then get the Seat equivalent, or even (in a few months) a VW Golf Alltrack. The only difference is that it doesn't look like a pseudo/vanity "4x4".
Is that UK or US gallons?
makes a difference when trying to work out L/100km
(or Rods to the Hogshead)
As El Reg is UK based, I was assuming UK gallons @ 4.3L rather than US Gallons @ 3.8L. Then I got wondering, about mpg being different in US vs UK because of the different sized gallons.
Wouldn't be the first time... UK 44 Gallon Drum is US 55 Gallon Drum (aka 192L to the rest of us), or getting a pump rated in gpm (Gallons per minute), having to figure out where the thing was made or designed to determine its actual rated output.
And all because the Gallon hadn't been standardised when the immigrants on the Mayflower left & took their local 431 cu inch Gallon with them (rather than the 461 cu inch gallon that became the imperial Gallon shortly afterwards).
An Imperial (UK) gallon is 4.54 litres, not 4.3 litres.
Our gallon is bigger than yours mostly because our pint is 20 floz, not 16.
But our fluid ounce is 4% bigger than yours, too.
Anyway, I drove a Civic with one of these engines 450 miles, mostly motorway. It achieved 75mpg, which was impressive.
I know quite a few CRV owners and the cars are almost exclusively used by their wives and are deeply loved by them. Dull as ditchwater but very capable, very solid and very reliable.
To the post above I was a Skoda owner for 7yr with a Mk2 VRS petrol, it was a great car but Skoda have got rather up themselves lately and you wouldn't pay much more for an Audi over a Skoda.
And if you are looking at a SEAT rather than a skoda , then you'd probably be looking at the 4WD Altea that they make aren't you?. They seem to be as rare as hen's teeth. I think I've seen three- ever! Speaking from experience - I went from an altea XL to a petrol 4WD CRV and there's no comparison. The altea was a great car and had plenty of space but the CRV is much more spacious. My teenage sons have plenty of elbow room.
My CRV is as dull as a very dull thing, but it has been very reliable so far, and I love it for that. It is extremely comfy to drive, especially on very long journeys. Motorways are a doddle with the adaptive cruise control.
SUV - Sports Utility Vehicle.
My Focus is an SUV. I drive to somewhere to play Sports in it. It is Utilitarian - if I fold down the seats I can carry large objects. And it is a Vehicle.
MPV - MultiPurpose Vehicle.
My Focus is an MPV. It is Multipurpose - if I fold down the seats I can carry large objects. And it is a Vehicle.
My Focus is a People-carrier. It, er, carries people.
My Focus is a sports car. I drive to somewhere to play Sports in it.
I've been seriously looking at these to replace my old '07 CRV with 120K miles (and many of those towing a very large 6-berth caravan with 4 adults and child seat!) It's never missed a beat, which is why I've kept it so long.
However, this trend towards lighter cars with smaller engines is a real pain for people who have to tow. I'm not sure that even the technologically advanced 1.6 is going to pull as well as the old 2.3.
I once managed 49mpg on a 300+mile trip, but 42 was the average and only 24mpg when 5-up and towing (and this huge drop was why I always thought that the 2.3 was a little underpowered.)
Oh, and the older model had part time 4WD, which made it great for towing off a wet field (without tearing up the turf) or up a very steep incline (done a hill start towing on a 1in4 a few times!)
I don't need 4WD all the time, but with everything else on the market getting so light, I'm probably going to go for a nice, heavy Discovery for safety, and only 30mpg :-(
I'm not posting anonymously as I'm not the caravan you get stuck behind - I always travel at the maximum I'm allowed, due to the stability the old CRV gives.
" I'm not sure that even the technologically advanced 1.6 is going to pull as well as the old 2.3."
Remember tractor racing?
The company I worked for had a tractor that had been experimentally supercharged to 5.8 bar*. Much was the rejoicing on the weekend it beat a tractor fitted with a Merlin engine. Getting the air into a Diesel beats mere cubes any day.
*Do not try this at home. Unless you have the equivalent of a fully fitted F1 workshop and a few PhDs to call on.
If you took the bonnet and tail badges off you woould be hard put to tell the difference between this, Kia, Hyundai, Ford etc. (this the case with most cars these days, alot of them are the same car different badge)
I prefer the old HRV, it had part-time 4WD, was a bit under powered with a 1.6 petrol which made it into a higher tax bracket and the fuel consumption was pitiful at around 32mpg but it looked a whole lot better.
The thing about a Honda is it drives effortlessly, I've got an old prelude (2nd gen, 4 wheel steering and flip up headlights which are so cool), it is of course a death trap with pillars like pencils and no crumple zones, you crash it you die but it is sheer joy to drive.
It's not the fastest 'sports' coupe in the world but I can drive for seven hours without stopping and get out without feeling tired and only needing a wee.
As an aside, what's with the mpg/L100 fuel consumption figures, in the UK we measure road distance in miles and buy fuel in litres so the proper terminology should be miles per litre.
40mpg = ~11.3l/100km and should be written 8.83 mpl (or about 13 pence per mile in the UK)
It's also huge for the amout of interior space you get - has anyone noticed how you can't walk between cars in car parks any more, because they';ve become too wide for the spaces? It's basically a hatchback for someone who wants a higher/more dominating car.
Anyway, I wouldn't buy one because I live where they're made and every Honda "associate" of more than two years' standing (they don't seem to have "employees" any more) gets to drive one for £99 a month, so the town is infested with them.