Not impressed with the Honda HR-V

[Kaido]

For reference, the HR-V is basically a lifted, AWD-optional version of the Honda Fit:

http://automobiles.honda.com/hr-v/

It's basically a mini CR-V. Right now our family car is a leased Civic, which is really nice, but also pretty tight with a toddler. My local dealer is awesome for early lease upgrades & also does fantastic zero-down deals for returning customers (woot woot), so I buzzed down today to go for a test drive. Just a laundry list of thoughts:

1. Looks like a sporty CR-V. Very nice exterior design. I believe the term for it is "compact crossover"; my salesguy just called it a mini crossover.

2. Finally, a usable trunk! Really really nice size.

3. Inside feels...tight. Not in a good way, given the size of the car (compared to the Fit). It has sloped curves going into the back, which makes it feel a lot smaller inside than it really is. My DD is a '14 Kia Soul, which feels enormous inside, so this really felt like a big step down. I didn't really feel comfortable in it & had a hard time getting the seat to adjust. In the Civic, you drive leaning back. In the Soul, you drive sitting up, like in a desk chair. In the HR-V, it wants to lean back, but they designed it more like the Soul so you kind of sit up, so I never really "fit" into the seat. Kinda weird.

4. Talk about sticker shock. Nowhere near the website prices. The fully-loaded model was well over $27k, which is bananas. I can literally get another Soul for half the price, no way. I was hoping the pricing would be in line with the Fit (about $15k starting), but it's nearly $20k starting (not that you can get it for that right now!).

5. 141 HP is a nice upgrade from the 117 I had in my previous Honda Fit, but paired with the CVT transmission...ugh. I did not enjoy driving it. I took out the new Fit awhile ago too & didn't care for the CVT in that at all either. Nissan's next-gen CVT is a LOT better (my parents have a Versa, it's surprisingly nice!). We liked our Fit because it was zoomy, just very peppy & fun to drive, and the CVT kind of kills that fun. Due to the weirdness of the CVT, the HR-V didn't feel zippy. I think it would benefit from a similar engine to the automatic Soul, which is something like 164 HP, but that's closer to what the CR-V has (185 iirc), so they probably don't want to cannibalize. Anyway, didn't care for the power or the driving experience with the transmission. Steering was fine though, and it felt heavier & nicer on the road over bumps - definitely a more solid ride. Didn't take the stick-shift out for a test drive, just the automatic - would probably be lightyears more fun to drive though!

6. Climate controls on the EX-L & EX-L Navi...nope. It's one of those tinted black glass touchscreen deals. No no no no. Fortunately the lesser models don't have it.

http://automobiles.honda.com/images/2016/hr-v/features-comfort/automatic-climate-control.jpg

7. Very weird side mirror. I kinda hated it. It's basically a split mirror designed to eliminate blind spots, which is a cool idea, but it's hard to look at while you're driving because it gives you two different moving images. There's a video explanation here:

http://owners.honda.com/vehicles/information/2015/CR-V/features/Expanded-View-Drivers-Mirror

8. As always, didn't really care for Honda leather (I usually get the base model or a step above the base model to get the cloth seats, which I know sounds weird). However, the higher-end models have the cooler features, like the blinker cameras (LaneWatch) & whatnot. Nice big color screen with backup camera & whatnot.

Overall...cool concept, executed somewhat poorly & with a currently high pricetag. I would definitely go with a Kia Soul again over one of these; the only thing is that my wife didn't care for the stiff ride of the Soul, so that's out. Literally all of the CR-V's on the showroom floor had better pricing than the HR-V's, which was really strange since it's typically a somewhat pricey crossover, but the feature set even on the base models has really improved (backup camera, Bluetooth, etc.) & it's rated at 34 MPG highway now, which is pretty awesome given the larger size of the car. Neither of us like large cars, but the CR-V might be worth checking out because it isn't overly large & the HR-V is just a bit too snug. Anyway, just my 2-cents on a quick test drive of the HR-V. Neat, but definitely not for me!

Unrelated edit: The CR-V apparently had a refresh or redesign this year; lots of vibration issues reported. First-gen design issues?

 

[tweakmonkey]

I'd rather just have a Fit.

 

[NutBucket]

I don't understand your complaint about the climate controls....

 

[Demo24]

I'd rather get a Mazda cx3 or cx5 than either of those.

 

[TheStu]

I don't understand your complaint about the climate controls....

He wants knobs so he can blindly fiddle with them, I guess.

 

[Kaido]

I don't understand your complaint about the climate controls....

It's basically a touchscreen (just not an LCD screen), rather than nice physical buttons. You can't easily fiddle with it as you're driving, you basically have to look at it. Plus, it's underneath the main touchscreen, above the shifter, so it's in a bit of a weird place:

Subaru OTOH has the right idea - a touchscreen combined with physical controls:

That's actually one of the things that bugs me about the Tesla, too - you either have to use the steering wheel controls, or else look at the giant, somewhat blinding touchscreen to tweak stuff in your car. No thanks. I'll stick with the dials!

 

[Kaido]

I'd rather just have a Fit.

Same. We really liked our Fit ('10 I think). However, they ruined the new model. Didn't like the CVT at all (my wife doesn't want to drive stick either), didn't particularly care for the nose redesign, and they took out all of the awesome billion cupholders

 

[Kaido]

I'd rather get a Mazda cx3 or cx5 than either of those.

Yeah, we are going to look at those next. How is Mazda in terms of reliability? I have no experience with them at all.

 

[Kaido]

He wants knobs so he can blindly fiddle with them, I guess.

Correct. Touchscreen + low placement = meh.

 

[Viper GTS]

Cars should have buttons and switches and dials. Ford learned this lesson and switched back, Honda apparently wasn't paying attention.

Also, the CX-5 is great. Pretty much the best thing in that class if you get any enjoyment from cars.

Viper GTS

 

[Kaido]

Cars should have buttons and switches and dials. Ford learned this lesson and switched back, Honda apparently wasn't paying attention.

Also, the CX-5 is great. Pretty much the best thing in that class if you get any enjoyment from cars.

Viper GTS

I think if we go small SUV, it will either be a CX-5 or a Forester. I just feel like the Subarus are stupid expensive for a minimalist feature set. But, they last forever & have great resale value. Now that we're putting on more miles due to kids, the next one we get may be a purchase, so it will be something we'll keep for probably ten years. I know the Subarus hold out forever, how do Mazdas do?

 

[NutBucket]

Subaru doesn't have touchscreen controls...just a display and buttons. But really, with climate control I never fiddle with it. It's set to 71, AC off (so semi auto). If its warm I'll hit the auto button, that's it.

Therefore I find your complaint invalid

As far as price..it's not far off. I mean, a loaded HR-V should cost more than a base CR-V...the same way a loaded Civic costs more than a base Accord. It's all a trade-off, size vs. features.

 

[Demo24]

Yeah, we are going to look at those next. How is Mazda in terms of reliability? I have no experience with them at all.

Generally fine, Consumer Reports puts them at #3: http://pressroom.consumerreports.org/pressroom/2014/10/my-entry.html

Overall I wouldn't expect major problems with routine maintenance kept up.

Mazda is also starting to reuse a lot of parts in it's various models, and that typically results in higher reliability.

CX3 might be too small for you, if there's even one on the lot, as it's based on a 2. Cx5 looks like a nice size though

 

[Viper GTS]

I think if we go small SUV, it will either be a CX-5 or a Forester. I just feel like the Subarus are stupid expensive for a minimalist feature set. But, they last forever & have great resale value. Now that we're putting on more miles due to kids, the next one we get may be a purchase, so it will be something we'll keep for probably ten years. I know the Subarus hold out forever, how do Mazdas do?

When we were shopping it really came down to the CX-5, Forester, and Crosstrek Hybrid. The decision ended up being that the Mazda was a more comfortable, well rounded vehicle. It does everything well. The Subarus do one thing really, really well (AWD) but you are sacrificing in other areas to have that. In an area that is heavily salted during the winter months leaving bone dry roads 95% of the time that didn't seem like a worthwhile tradeoff.

Other factors:

Subaru's infotainment system was archaic even compared to the Mazda (which has been refreshed for 2016, but was not great in 2015 models). Subaru now uses CVTs which we didn't like at all. The adaptive HIDs (now LED) on the CX-5 are awesome. Do yourself a favor and test drive one after dark.

Viper GTS

 

[Kaido]

Subaru doesn't have touchscreen controls...just a display and buttons. But really, with climate control I never fiddle with it. It's set to 71, AC off (so semi auto). If its warm I'll hit the auto button, that's it.

Therefore I find your complaint invalid

As far as price..it's not far off. I mean, a loaded HR-V should cost more than a base CR-V...the same way a loaded Civic costs more than a base Accord. It's all a trade-off, size vs. features.

None of my cars are fancy enough for auto hvac :biggrin:

 

[Kaido]

Generally fine, Consumer Reports puts them at #3: http://pressroom.consumerreports.org/pressroom/2014/10/my-entry.html

Overall I wouldn't expect major problems with routine maintenance kept up.

Mazda is also starting to reuse a lot of parts in it's various models, and that typically results in higher reliability.

CX3 might be too small for you, if there's even one on the lot, as it's based on a 2. Cx5 looks like a nice size though

Nice! Yeah the CX-5 looks about the right size. Interesting how many companies are going after the Soul-sized segment now too! (re: CX-3)

 

[NutBucket]

When we were shopping it really came down to the CX-5, Forester, and Crosstrek Hybrid. The decision ended up being that the Mazda was a more comfortable, well rounded vehicle. It does everything well. The Subarus do one thing really, really well (AWD) but you are sacrificing in other areas to have that. In an area that is heavily salted during the winter months leaving bone dry roads 95% of the time that didn't seem like a worthwhile tradeoff.

Other factors:

Subaru's infotainment system was archaic even compared to the Mazda (which has been refreshed for 2016, but was not great in 2015 models). Subaru now uses CVTs which we didn't like at all. The adaptive HIDs (now LED) on the CX-5 are awesome. Do yourself a favor and test drive one after dark.

Viper GTS

I thought I would hate it but given it's mission Subaru's CVT is actually quite good. Better than most automatics I've dealt with.

 

[Kaido]

When we were shopping it really came down to the CX-5, Forester, and Crosstrek Hybrid. The decision ended up being that the Mazda was a more comfortable, well rounded vehicle. It does everything well. The Subarus do one thing really, really well (AWD) but you are sacrificing in other areas to have that. In an area that is heavily salted during the winter months leaving bone dry roads 95% of the time that didn't seem like a worthwhile tradeoff.

Other factors:

Subaru's infotainment system was archaic even compared to the Mazda (which has been refreshed for 2016, but was not great in 2015 models). Subaru now uses CVTs which we didn't like at all. The adaptive HIDs (now LED) on the CX-5 are awesome. Do yourself a favor and test drive one after dark.

Viper GTS

Yeah, pretty much I like the turbo option in the Forester & the EyeSight, but then all of a sudden you're at $35k for a stationwagon, haha. As far as fancy stereo features go, we pretty much just use Bluetooth for streaming & calls, so not really high requirements there. I'm not an overly huge fan of CVT's either, although Nissan's latest ones are tolerable, so I'll have to swing by today & see how the Forester's is with the turbo. Sounds like a weird combo to be honest, haha. My friend has a Crosstrek & it's too snug as well, so that's out. Cool seats & sporty-car feel though!

 

[evident]

I think the price overlap doesn't make this car worthwhile- you can just get a much nicer CR-V.

 

[996GT2]

4. Talk about sticker shock. Nowhere near the website prices. The fully-loaded model was well over $27k, which is bananas. I can literally get another Soul for half the price, no way. I was hoping the pricing would be in line with the Fit (about $15k starting), but it's nearly $20k starting (not that you can get it for that right now!).

Is this really surprising? The fully-loaded trim of just about every car is priced significantly higher than the base model. Best value for money is usually not your #1 priority when you go for the fully loaded model.

By the way, guess how much a fully loaded Kia Soul costs? the very same $27K!

In the case of Hondas, even the base "LX" models are very well equipped, and recent base-model Hondas have had things like rearview cameras, power windows/locks, and bluetooth as standard features. IMO, the best balance between cost and features on a Honda is the EX trim, since you are not paying a ton more than the base LX but you get nice amenities like the sunroof and heated front seats.

The HR-V EX 2WD is about $3,500 cheaper than the CR-V EX 2WD, which seems pretty fair to me.

 

[mizzou]

Interesting review, thank you! I always summarized the CR-V as a "lifted civic" lol

I might actually end up buying a CRV soon as the family vehicle. I can barely fit our carseat in the civic.

EDIT: Well maybe we won't, I should say, because it seems like the CRV is actually a tighter fit in some respects compared to the Civic Sedan D:

 

[996GT2]

It's basically a touchscreen (just not an LCD screen), rather than nice physical buttons. You can't easily fiddle with it as you're driving, you basically have to look at it. Plus, it's underneath the main touchscreen, above the shifter, so it's in a bit of a weird place

I do have to agree with you on this. Honda's HVAC controls used to be much more clearly laid out. Though interestingly, if you buy the base-model HR-V LX, you still get physical controls for audio and HVAC.


One more interesting thing about the HR-V: unlike many 4-cylinder engines on the market now, the HR-V retains port fuel injection, so no worries with the carbon issues that plague some DI engines.

 

[Yuriman]

I'm surprised the newest CR-V is rated 27/34. Still, I can foresee this being an attractive option for a lot of people who want to sit in an "SUV", but also want something cheaper and with good gas mileage. The HR-V is one of the few cases where those things aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[NutBucket]

Why shouldn't it be rated highly? DI engine + CVT + FWD.

And you folks complaining about HVAC controls are funny. The whole point of auto HVAC is set it and forget it.

 

[996GT2]

I'm surprised the newest CR-V is rated 27/34. Still, I can foresee this being an attractive option for a lot of people who want to sit in an "SUV", but also want something cheaper and with good gas mileage. The HR-V is one of the few cases where those things aren't mutually exclusive.

The newest CR-V is using Honda's new DI engine and CVT combination, which is also used in 4-cylinder accords (rated 28/36 in that application). The CR-V is about 100 lbs heavier than an Accord and probably has somewhat worse aerodynamics, so 27/34 seems about right.

I'm actually a little surprised that the HR-V's mpg numbers aren't better than the 28/35 it's rated for, given that it's some 450 lbs lighter than a CR-V. But it's most likely due to the non-direct injection engine and the worse power:weight ratio on the HR-V causing the engine to work harder.