Honda hits high and low notes
Small and medium SUVs are the hottest property in the new car arena. Do Honda’s measure up? Richard Bosselman finds out.
Some say Honda hasn’t been quite the same since the shouting stopped. The reason why this brand used to set the standard during the 1970s and 80s, it reckons, is because Soichiro Honda used to yell at employees until the products were perfect.
Japanese engineer Soichiro Honda died in 1991, the year after the utterly ground-breaking original NSX emerged.
Has there been anything of great flavour since then? Actually, yes. The Civic Type R is great, the current Jazz works well and the next one looks promising and I’d love to see the recently-revealed all-electric E urban commuter here. Yet for every example of genuine pizzazz there’s something that might file under ‘‘zzzz’’.
The opportunity to try the latest developments in the CR-V and HR-V lines was timely. The sports utility sector is hot yet these models are hardly running at optimal sale temp; the larger placing a desultory seventh, the second holding fourth last year.
Even though their sectors are well subscribed, this might seem a poor showing given how ground-breaking these cars were in their original formats.
From time spent with the AWD Sensing, I’d suggest the latest ‘‘compact recreational vehicle’’ deserves more notice. The CR-V isn’t flawless yet remains solid and likeable.
The HR-V less so. Every maker worth its salt has a compact crossover these days and as much as a new Limited trim brings improvements, the overall impression is that this Jazz-based has been pummelled by the avalanche of rival products.
There’s strength in the spec. Leather-appointed seats with heating in the front chairs and LED (automatic) headlights, tail lights and front fog lights are nice treats, and adopting the CR-V’s LaneWatch is beneficial for tight city commuting. Likewise, City-Brake Active System (which operates at speeds between 5kmh and 32kmh), lane-departure warning and rear parking sensors.
Yet a design just five years fresh has dated. A sloping roofline and rear door handles hidden into the door pillars lend some coupe imprints, but being on trend now means looking trendy. And it’s just not.
While lacking a full sense of ‘‘newness’’ as a result of its shape basically being a facsimile of the one before, the CR-V has aged better and arguably is better attuned to its quite different fan base.
Interior themes are broadly similar, so each scores well for ergonomic sensibility and major instrumentation clarity. Both will be criticised for central infotainment menus that are unduly confusing, blighted by a mish-mash of styles and missing a beat by lacking decent phone mirroring (and too few USB ports). HR-V’s low-resolution display is a cheap shot, too.
These squared, slightly oversized shapes pay dividends for roominess. Honda is known for giving sensible regard to the ‘‘U-for-utility’’ part of the SUV equation. You’ll be impressed by storage solutions yet might also concur that even with HR-V also offering generous boot space and seats that fold to deliver a big, flat cargo area, the CR-V is more complete in its packaging.
Insofar as basic comfort goes, the larger car also wins. Nothing to do with it obviously offering more room. It also has better seats and a superior driving position. A scalloped roof line opens head room in the HR-V, but that’s about it for positives.
The ability to drive in the same manner as a regular road car is also better in the larger car. As much as the strut front, multi-link rear suspension keeps the body poised and flat through corners, it’s not a car for chasing down corners yet it is confident. All-wheel-drive (also available to HR-V) obviously enhances traction, even if the electronic stability control enacts early and without any particular subtlety.
The HR-V steers more sharply, pitches less under braking and has a higher stability control threshold. But lacks finesse. The torsion bar rear is hip-hoppy, there’s significant tyre noise and coarse chip nervousness.
It’s a similar tale in respect to the mechanical aspect. The CR-V Sensing engine is now a 1.5 and while requiring revs to effect the best zip, it is energetic and effective, with better economy than the unit it bumps.
The HR-V needs the same powerplant. The unit it has is one of Honda’s oldest and feels it. It can be thrifty in eco mode, but is always raucous. The ‘‘slipping clutch’’ feel of the CVT takes even more shine off, even if the new stepped-ratio software allows more manual control.
The CR-V has always been hard to pigeonhole. There’s nothing here to really dislike, yet if asked to name qualities that stand out . . . well, that’s a challenge, too. It’s a solid effort that needs a lift. The hybrid model sold overseas would be a good addition given how well the battery-assisted Toyota RAV4 is doing.
HR-V has a harder road. Honda’s best hope is that potential buyers restrict their cross-shopping to other timeworn options, like the Ford EcoSport or Nissan Juke, rather than the Mazda CX-3 and new Kia Seltos.