Not impressed with the Honda HR-V

[996GT2]

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.

You're technically right, but I have dual zone auto HVAC in my Accord and I still find myself fiddling with the temperature knob from time to time to get the temperature exactly where I want.

I feel like there should always be physical controls for volume and temperature in a car.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

great writeup Kaido thanks for sharing

 

[NutBucket]

My one peeve on the topic of auto HVAC. Why are people inclined to turn down the temp when its hot (or turn up the temp when cold)? It won't cool (or heat) any faster people!

 

[Kaido]

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

Yeah, and the base CR-V is very nicely equipped these days if you don't need leather or a sunroof :thumbsup:

 

[Kaido]

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.

Yeah, we got the Civic LX after the base model upgrade changes, it's been great! Also, right now they are price-gouging the HR-V, so the prices are inflated over MSRP quite a bit in my area.

 

[Kaido]

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:

Nah, I checked it out (currently have a Civic, played with the CR-V for bit yesterday), it has a nice roominess to it. The HR-V is the one that feels tight. Also, read up on the new CR-V's vibration issue...Honda has apparently acknowledged that it exists, but isn't doing anything about it.

 

[Kaido]

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.

Yeah, that's nice - and I took the stick Fit out on a test drive a year or two ago & it was pretty zippy, so I'd imagine the stick HR-V would be a LOT more fun to drive. Interesting about the PFI...

 

[Kaido]

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.

I was actually really surprised at this. My 130hp Soul gets 28mph highway...the CR-V felt a lot bigger inside & got an extra 6 highway...I was tempted, but the vibration issue steered me away from it.

 

[Kaido]

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.

I fiddle all the time with mine; none of mine have automatic control with set temperatures.

I'd be curious about the FWD. My Soul has ESC in addition to TC & it was AMAZING in the winter! By far the best car I've ever driven in the snow. I honestly don't really see the need for AWD with a good-quality ESC system, that's how good it was (especially if you throw on some Blizzaks!).

 

[996GT2]

My one peeve on the topic of auto HVAC. Why are people inclined to turn down the temp when its hot (or turn up the temp when cold)? It won't cool (or heat) any faster people!

Sorry, what? That's definitely not the case in my car.

If it's say 75 degrees outside and you have the auto AC set to 72 or 73, then the system will operate at a moderate fan speed so as to minimize interior noise. However, if you turn the temp knob down to 60, then the AC will come on full blast, which does in fact cool the car faster.

Similarly, if it's 50 degrees out and you have the temp set to 70, the system will operate at a medium fan speed. But if you turn up the temp all the way to max, the heater will come on full blast.

Basically, the system is semi-"intelligent" and tries to find a balance between airflow and fan noise depending on what your temperature setting is. I also like that the system has a built-in delay where it won't turn on the fan until the engine has warmed up a bit, so as to not blast you in the face with cold air.

 

[NutBucket]

It's the interior temp that's relevant. If the interior is hot compared to set temp the system comes on "hard", etc.

 

[996GT2]

It's the interior temp that's relevant. If the interior is hot compared to set temp the system comes on "hard", etc.

Yeah, sorry, I meant to say interior temp. But what I said still stands. If the inside of the car is 75 and you have the AC set to 70, the fan speed will be slower than if you have the AC set to 60. The system tries to balance the fan speed so that you get cooling while minimizing fan noise. However, if you set the temperature knob down at 60, the system will assume you don't care about fan noise and run the fan on full blast.

That's how it works in my Accord, anyway.

 

[Yuriman]

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.

Downsizing the engine nearly *always* returns a fuel economy improvement, if all else is left the same. Sometimes the improvement is very small if a manufacturer regears, resulting in higher cruising RPM, but offhand I can't think of any vehicles sold today that get better economy with an optional larger displacement engine. This is why manufacturers today are downsizing their engines, in order to meet CAFE standards.

This is an example of a BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) chart, taken from Wikipedia:

Smaller numbers (essentially) mean you're getting more power output for a given amount of fuel, or inversely, you're producing the same power using less fuel. Note how this engine (and nearly all engines) are most efficient under high load (going up the chart). Downsizing an engine results in higher loads at the same RPM under the same driving conditions.

You simply don't get better economy out of bigger engines in the same application, unless you're underpowered enough that driving in a straight line requires 3500+ RPM. Considering most passenger vehicles need less than 30HP (and many less than 20HP) to cruise on the highway...

 

[NutBucket]

Yeah, sorry, I meant to say interior temp. But what I said still stands. If the inside of the car is 75 and you have the AC set to 70, the fan speed will be slower than if you have the AC set to 60. The system tries to balance the fan speed so that you get cooling while minimizing fan noise. However, if you set the temperature knob down at 60, the system will assume you don't care about fan noise and run the fan on full blast.

That's how it works in my Accord, anyway.

Oh, then yes, I agree. 75 --> 70 wouldn't take long anyway but I digress.

What I really liked in our GMC Acadia was the fan would slow down when the bluetooth activated so it wouldn't interfere with a phone call. Pretty slick I thought.

 

[Demo24]

Yeah, sorry, I meant to say interior temp. But what I said still stands. If the inside of the car is 75 and you have the AC set to 70, the fan speed will be slower than if you have the AC set to 60. The system tries to balance the fan speed so that you get cooling while minimizing fan noise. However, if you set the temperature knob down at 60, the system will assume you don't care about fan noise and run the fan on full blast.

That's how it works in my Accord, anyway.

Doesn't do that in my 3, which is the first auto hvac I've kept in auto mode. Might take a minute to recognize how hot/cold the interior is, but once so it blows pretty hard to catch up. Right now with it getting hot the a/c blows max force to try and get there asap, and I generally leave it set to around 72-75.

The 3 also has that heat delay which I thought was a nice touch!

 

[996GT2]

The 3 also has that heat delay which I thought was a nice touch!

The heat delay is an absolute godsend in the winter

 

[thomsbrain]

Haven't driven the CX-3 or the HR-V, but I'm guessing the Mazda is a lot more fun.

Still, we're talking about family transportation here, not a weekend sports car. I know which one I would trust to still be Disney-trip worthy after 300,000 miles, and it's not the Mazda (and sure as hell not a Subaru). Too bad about the center stack ergonomics, but as NutBucket says, Honda/Acura climate control is set-it-and-forget-it, so that's not a huge hardship.

 

[996GT2]

A useful feature of the HR-V which is not found in the CR-V is the "magic seat" function from the Fit, which can be helpful for storing tall items in the car. The CR-V's seats only fold down or flip forward, and there is no option to fold the seat cushion up.

 

[996GT2]

Cargo capacity (rear seat up/down) in cubic feet:

Fit: 16.6 / 52.7
VW Tiguan: 23.8 / 56.1
HR-V: 24.3 / 58.8
Kia Soul: 24.2 / 61.3
Mazda CX-5: 34.1 / 64.8 (CX-3 specs not available)
CR-V: 35.2 / 70.9

 

[Kaido]

Somehow ended up bringing home a Forester today :whiste:

My Soul payoff was to the point of being an even trade & my wife absolutely hates having a stick shift in the family, so I decided to swap it out. Got the 2.5i Premium (sunroof but with cloth) with EyeSight. EyeSight is crazy cool! The dealership was also surprisingly extremely competitive & beat Truecar by over a grand, so I didn't even get a chance to test-drive the CX-5. So I'll be driving the Civic for the rest of the year until the lease runs out (unless I want to do an early upgrade), but I've been getting 36mpg highway (non-hybrid & on regular gas!), so that will be a huge boost for my commute (28mpg max before on the Kia), so I'm probably not going to go anywhere on it. Ecoboost Mustang anyone? :awe:

 

[Kaido]

Cargo capacity (rear seat up/down) in cubic feet:

Fit: 16.6 / 52.7
VW Tiguan: 23.8 / 56.1
HR-V: 24.3 / 58.8
Kia Soul: 24.2 / 61.3
Mazda CX-5: 34.1 / 64.8 (CX-3 specs not available)
CR-V: 35.2 / 70.9

Surprisingly, the Soul feels far roomier than the HR-V does. Although the HR-V has a better trunk, so that's where all the space goes.

 

[996GT2]

Somehow ended up bringing home a Forester today :whiste:

My Soul payoff was to the point of being an even trade & my wife absolutely hates having a stick shift in the family, so I decided to swap it out. Got the 2.5i Premium (sunroof but with cloth) with EyeSight. EyeSight is crazy cool! The dealership was also surprisingly extremely competitive & beat Truecar by over a grand, so I didn't even get a chance to test-drive the CX-5. So I'll be driving the Civic for the rest of the year until the lease runs out (unless I want to do an early upgrade), but I've been getting 36mpg highway (non-hybrid & on regular gas!), so that will be a huge boost for my commute (28mpg max before on the Kia), so I'm probably not going to go anywhere on it. Ecoboost Mustang anyone? :awe:

How's the interior on Subarus these days? Last time I was in a 2012 Impreza (loaded trim with navigation), I was really disappointed by how much cheap plastic there was. Granted, it's something Honda/Toyota have been guilty of as well in recent years, but I was shocked to be sitting in a sea of plastic that was the Impreza's interior.

 

[Kaido]

How's the interior on Subarus these days? Last time I was in a 2012 Impreza (loaded trim with navigation), I was really disappointed by how much cheap plastic there was. Granted, it's something Honda/Toyota have been guilty of as well in recent years, but I was shocked to be sitting in a sea of plastic that was the Impreza's interior.

Utilitarian still. Although I happen like that style myself, clean & basic. GPS is meh & voice commands are useless, but it came with the EyeSight system, so oh well. You can't put anything under the glass on the EyeSight, all the way to the bottom, so I have to figure out where to mount a dashcam now. There are some dumb design decisions - like they have a big touchscreen for the radio, but rather than using it, they stick in a tiny backup camera above it, far away, and that smaller screen is facing straight back instead of angled towards the driver, which is just dumb:

However, the night vision is actually excellent, much better than my Civic's (I compared them side-by-side tonight). Also, the Subaru radio can be swapped out, so I can throw a Carplay stereo in there if I want down the road. The stock speakers are actually excellent, probably the best non-premium factory sound I've heard. The sunroof is ridiculous. Visibility is the best ever as well.

Seating is interesting as well. It's roomy like the Soul, but it's more like you're sitting at a desk - the steering wheel is lower & down by your knees, so you get insane 360 visibility with the ability to see straight out the window. Also little visibility details like the A-pillar hole is a clear triangle window & the sideview mirrors are mounted outside coming up, so you can see everything:

I wasn't planning on picking anything up just yet, but the local Subaru dealer absolutely smashed the price, even beat out the AWD 185hp CX-5 I was going to look at by a long shot, which I was surprised at since Subaru dealers never seem to budge on price much. I had a great sales guy too, no pressure, super helpful, it was a really nice buying experience (again, surprisingly). Traded keys & drove it home, couldn't be happier :thumbsup: Planning on keeping this beast for at least 10 years!

 

[NutBucket]

Should have gone with eyesight without nav. The nav is terrible. That combo is only available on the premium.

Welcome to the club. We have a limited but no nav/eyesight.

I find the location of the backup cam better up high. Looking down at the nav screen seems dumb to me.

 

[tortillasoup]

Downsizing the engine nearly *always* returns a fuel economy improvement, if all else is left the same. Sometimes the improvement is very small if a manufacturer regears, resulting in higher cruising RPM, but offhand I can't think of any vehicles sold today that get better economy with an optional larger displacement engine. This is why manufacturers today are downsizing their engines, in order to meet CAFE standards.

This is an example of a BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) chart, taken from Wikipedia:

Smaller numbers (essentially) mean you're getting more power output for a given amount of fuel, or inversely, you're producing the same power using less fuel. Note how this engine (and nearly all engines) are most efficient under high load (going up the chart). Downsizing an engine results in higher loads at the same RPM under the same driving conditions.

You simply don't get better economy out of bigger engines in the same application, unless you're underpowered enough that driving in a straight line requires 3500+ RPM. Considering most passenger vehicles need less than 30HP (and many less than 20HP) to cruise on the highway...

Prius, Volt, Civic Hybrid, all started off with smaller engines and they increased their displacement a tad because they found better fuel economy with a larger displacement. Every vehicle for a given curb weight has an ideal engine displacement for most driver habits. The only people who can get away with a smaller displacement/less power motor are hypermilers because today's drivers are far more aggressive in accelerating than in the past. On the CAFE fuel economy test cycle, the Prius gets better fuel economy from the larger 1.8L engine but hypermilers have found that they get slightly better fuel economy out of the 1.5L engine in the '04-'09 Prius.