HONDA CR-V: FULL ROAD TEST
Honda moves its long-established CR-V into full-size family SUV territory
Some 23 years have now passed since the firstgeneration Honda CR-V emerged into the world. It was a pioneer among modern, good-mannered, family-friendly urban SUVS – not because it looked particularly radical or featured any groundbreaking technology, but because it changed people’s perceptions and expectations of, and attitudes to, vehicles of its ilk.
The CR-V’S Civic-derived platform allowed it to handle in a far more car-like manner than contemporary 4x4s, while its high-riding stature conveyed a sense of onboard safety and security that family-minded buyers found hugely appealing. The CR-V has flourished in spite of all of the competition it has inspired; by Honda’s own claim, it has become the world’s best-selling compact SUV.
The landscape into which this much larger fifth-generation version of the Comfortable Runabout Vehicle emerges demands more of it than any of its forebears, of course. Competition is now far stiffer than it was even as recently as for the fourthgeneration version, while the market is saturated with rivals – many of which have been cast with more sporting personalities and dashing good looks than could be justified for the ever-functional CR-V, and many of which come from premium brands.
So how does the Honda fight back? Well, for the first time, the CR-V is being offered with the option of seven seats, while a petrol-electric hybrid version is set to appear in 2019. The car’s cabin is claimed to be more spacious than ever, while classleading fuel efficiency is promised to boost its rational appeal still further.
But are the changes wrought on our five-seat, petrol-engined test car enough to make the CR-V stand out against big-name rivals such as the Volkswagen Tiguan, Skoda Kodiaq and Peugeot 5008? Or will it struggle to keep its head above water?
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING
Japanese manufacturers seem to have a knack for designing cars that are more interesting to behold than their European counterparts. Interestinglooking cars aren’t necessarily attractive ones, of course. Mitsubishi has its quirky-looking Eclipse Cross, Lexus a family of unapologetically edgy SUVS and Honda – in addition to its 10th-generation Civic – now has the latest CR-V.
While the car’s boxy silhouette hasn’t changed radically from Mk4 to Mk5, the CR-V is now a far busier thing to look at. Sharp creases and bold contours are used fairly liberally – just look at that bonnet – while abundant brightwork draws the eye. Wider arches and larger wheels that are now positioned further towards the car’s extremities lend the CR-V a more muscular and athletic stature.
The car has grown, too. Compared with that of its predecessor, its wheelbase has been stretched by 30mm to 2663mm (AWD), liberating additional interior space. All up, the CR-V is now 4600mm long, 1855mm wide and 1689mm tall – gains of 70mm, 104mm and 14mm over the dimensions of the 1995 original.
The fifth-generation CR-V is based on an adaptation of Honda’s ‘compact global’ platform that underpins the current Civic. This new chassis is not only lighter than the previous model’s, it also benefits from a 25% increase in torsional stiffness. Suspension, meanwhile, is comprised of a Macpherson struttype arrangement at the front and a multi-link set-up at the rear.
The CR-V is powered by a new version of the 1.5-litre four-cylinder petrol engine that’s available in the Civic – albeit one fitted with a smaller, more responsive turbocharger. Two states of tune are available: the first with 170bhp and 163lb ft when mated to a six-speed manual gearbox, the second with 190bhp with 179lb ft when paired with the car’s all-new continuously variable transmission (CVT). Our test car had the latter tune and transmission. Diesel engines have been dropped from the line-up.
Where manual models are available with front or four-wheel drive, Cvt-equipped CR-VS are exclusively four-wheel drive. Not that power is sent to all four wheels all of the time in the latter. A multi-plate clutch system is used to send up to 60% of the engine’s torque to the rear differential when needed – when accelerating from a standstill, driving on low-grip surfaces or, at times, when cornering. At cruising speeds, the rear axle drive disconnects in an attempt to improve fuel efficiency.
INTERIOR
With its new seven-seat layout option and after the growth spurt we’ve already described, this latest CR-V ought to be well placed to build on its strengths of convenience, practicality and functionality – and so it does.
Having grown to become a 4.6-metre car, of course, the CR-V now contends with greater expectations of roominess than it used to – although it still manages to surpass them. And, before we move on, we should note that (at least if you go for it in seven-seat form) you might still think of this car as usefully compact; it’s nearly 100mm shorter than the Skoda Kodiaq and almost 200mm shorter than the Kia Sorento.
The car offers its driver’s seat at a very convenient hip point height as you board, so the average UK driver won’t need to either bend down or climb up to get in. What you find once you’re inside is a pleasant and very spacious cabin whose layout and appearance are both more conventional than those of the more quirky Civic hatchback, but whose apparent standard on material quality is both higher and more
consistent – and which isn’t short on useful storage features.
The CR-V’S driving position is comfortable, straight and wellsupported. Instrumentation is presented on a digital flatscreen with an analogue-style rev counter at useful scale and a digital speedo. Below both is some digital display space that can be configured to show anything from four-wheel-drive torque distribution to audio track information – although for flexibility it’s some way off the segment’s better digital instrument binnacles.
Honda has arranged the car’s transmission controls quite high on the centre stack, freeing up a lot of storage space where the tunnel might otherwise be – most notably a deep cubby with a sliding lid that would easily accommodate a small laptop and keep it out of sight. The car’s gear selector could hardly be chunkier or easier to use. There are shifter paddles on the car’s steering column but once you’re used to the character of the car, you’re unlikely to reach for them much. There are no fourwheel-drive system overrides at all. The assumption is that, come what may, CR-V drivers will be happy to let the car’s driveline manage itself – which tells you as much as about the drivers courted as the driveline itself.
Second-row passenger space is outstanding: there’s 800mm of typical second-row leg room here, where the Skoda Kodiaq offers 750mm and the Mazda CX-5 only 730mm (although, if you want sliding second-row seats, you’ll have to opt for the seven-seat version). In the boot, the CR-V offers broadly similar amounts of seats-up loading length and width as its key rivals but beats almost all on loading height.
PERFORMANCE
Honda’s decision to drop diesel from the CR-V’S engine line-up might yet prove to be a sound one if the incoming hybrid is good. But, until that car arrives at least, you might well wonder if a 1.5-litre turbocharged petrol engine, hooked up to a CVT, will be the right fit for this near-1700kg car.
The answer to that question seems questionable out on the road. Backing turbo petrol power delivers the CR-V some desirable qualities: it’s a mechanically refined car when cruising at low engine speeds, and it revs more smoothly and freely than a like-for-like diesel might.
But it revs – a lot. Despite its efforts to make the CR-V’S transmission behave more like a torque converter automatic or even a dual-clutch auto at times, Honda has failed to engineer out the slushy, ‘elastic band’ feel out of this car’s power delivery entirely. If you’re happy to adopt an unhurried stride, the powertrain is very respectable; it’s smooth and fairly easy to manage. But when you either want or need the car to accelerate hard, it resorts to spinning the engine crankshaft up to 5000rpm and letting the transmission dole out the torque to the car’s four wheels as best it can.
Moreover, 179lb ft of peak pulling power isn’t a great deal to motivate a car of this size – and there are plenty of times on a typical UK journey when you’ll need all of it. Revs are the powertrain’s go-to solution. While CVTS can behave more like conventional torque-converter autos when working with torquier engines, the CR-VS certainly doesn’t. There is also the inherent unresponsiveness of a CVT to account for when driving on motorways and A-roads, and you have to judge how long it’s likely to be between pedal input and increased rate of acceleration. A 30-70mph time of 8.4sec isn’t a disgrace, but out in the real world it’s the transmission’s tendency to slip and the hesitancy to knuckle down that makes the car feel lazy and a little slow.
Strong real-world fuel economy would be some compensation for all that, if only the CR-V produced it. But, partly as a result of how hard you’re obliged to work the engine at times to get reasonable performance out of it, our test car averaged less than 32mpg on test – and its 37.9mpg touring economy test result isn’t likely to win it many fans, either.
RIDE AND HANDLING
Honda has gone to a great deal of trouble to make the new CR-V a match for the compact SUV class’s
The Honda makes it clear it doesn’t cater much for the interested driver
better-driving cars, and give it the air of sophistication that you would expect of a car that’s been established for so long. Although there is greater ground clearance than before, that hasn’t come at the expense of a raised centre of gravity, its maker points out.
Most of the details you might read about in the brochure, however (such as a longer wheelbase, hydraulic suspension bushings and new noise and vibration insulation techniques), seem to have been intended to boost the car’s refinement credentials. They succeed, to a point: the CR-V becomes one of the compact SUV class’s quieter and comfier customers, without setting a really exceptional standard on either score.
The CR-V is certainly not one of the more engaging or poised compact SUVS on the market from a handling perspective. Grip levels are adequate and handling is secure, but body control is only average, and there is nothing you would characterise as particularly agile about the way the car changes direction. In this respect, just as with its powertrain, the Honda makes it clear that it doesn’t much cater for the interested driver.
And it needn’t, of course, partly because handling dynamism is an entirely discretionary quality for an SUV to possess anyway, especially since the CR-V’S mission would seem to be to provide comfortable, smooth, easy-going family transport. The CR-V succeeds moderately well at most of those things. On the 19in wheels of upper-level EX trim, our test car’s ride might have been a touch quieter over coarse asphalt, but it dealt with broken surfaces well. The suspension works equally well around town and at relaxed cross-country speeds, although bigger lumps and bumps taken at greater pace do upset the cabin’s softly sprung calm.
Likewise, the CR-V isn’t always the most composed car at higher motorway speeds. But adopt the laidback, everyday-use, traffic-defined stride that the car encourages and you’ll find it capable of soothing away your stresses effectively enough.
BUYING AND OWNING
A touch under £9500 is what separates the basic five-door CR-V from our top-f light EX model, and at £36,455, this particular CR-V finds itself in pricey territory. The Honda’s fully loaded trim level explains the situation, however. Standard equipment on an EX includes 19in wheels, a head-up display, a heated steering wheel, heated front and rear seats and an electric tailgate.
However, the lower-grade SE is still fairly handsomely equipped, offering sat-nav, 18in alloys, rear-view camera and parking sensors – all coming for much better value. With front-wheel drive and a manual gearbox, the CR-V SE will cost you just £27,855.
As far as depreciation is concerned, our sources inform us that a CR-V in the same spec as our test car will retain 47% of its value after three years of ownership and 36,000 miles. That, compared with the Volvo XC40 and with CAP’S forecast for BMW’S X3, looks competitive. Where the Volvo will maintain 53% over the same period, the BMW will hold only 46%.