After missing the media test drive held somewhere in the East Coast of Malaysia, I finally managed to get a hold of the new 2007 Honda CR-V so I can report my findings to the ever eager and critical readers of this blog. Read my findings after the jump.
I know what most of you are thinking, the new CR-V is ugly and you wouldnt buy it anyway even if it is a good car. But this is not really the best way to choose your car purchase, after all looks are not everything. And the new CR-Vs design does grow on you after awhile, even Bangles initial BMW designs took some time to get used to. To quote some of my peers, “At first I thought the new CR-V looked like a piece of *toot*, but now I think its not a bad car at all.â€
Of course, when evaluating, and if Honda gets what it hopes, buying the car, you must not expect something else other than what it is meant to be out of it. I found that it does its name-sake very well, being a Comfortable Runabout Vehicle. In the end, it is still an SUV, and I am going to attempt to evaluate the CR-V as what it is, primarily SUV and secondarily a Honda. I say this because there are many associated properties that people expect a Honda to have, thanks to the fun high revving Civics of the past.
Indeed, the CR-V is a very pleasant and relaxed drive. Its really hard to get irritated with the car. You just glide along, and the happy feeling that you get with it may have something to do with the higher driving position, allowing you to see a great deal further ahead than what you can with a sedan. The R-series 2.0 litre SOHC i-VTEC engine paired with the 5-speed automatic gearbox is tuned to have a miserly behavior in terms of fuel, and perhaps stingy with power as well.
While it is more than sufficient to move the car along, and doing it with the minimum of engine RPM, when you put the pedal to the metal there is no lurch forward, instead the pace picks up very slowly and gradually. Once again, the R-series was designed for fuel economy and low-end grunt, not the high-end screaming power of the K-series, so this is yet another case where you shouldnt expect something to do what it is not designed to do. However, for the sake of driver enjoyment and even safety in maneuvering around obstacles in time, this Honda CR-V should ideally have more torque than it currently has. Because of this, I think the 2.2 i-CTDi CR-V will truly shine.
The steering is slightly vague but more than enough for what you expect out of an SUV. Its not up there to BMW standards but its better than most econobox cars and mini MPVs. Taking corners with the CR-V was a surprise – there was the expected SUV body roll yet the CR-V stayed very true to the lines you want it to take. The steering wheel was sufficiently weighted (yet another surprise for me considering it is an Electric Power Steering unit) so you do not need to tense up your own body to keep the steering pointed the way you want it to be pointed during those leaning corners.
All that marketing about how the new CR-V is so much more car-like than before is not just marketing speak, there is much truth to it! The new car-like driving experience has some trade-offs though – the new CR-V loses even more of its little off-road ability to begin with. Ground clearance is now lower by 35mm.
I tried to take a photo of the engine sitting in the engine bay from this angle, but it was a failure as the engine is mounted too low in the engine bay for center of gravity purposes.
So this is likely one of the only few angles you can use when taking a photo of the R20A engine. It’s not the best looking of engines aesthetics-wise but does it’s job. Notice the oxygen sensor right after the exhaust manifold outlets. The R20A engine is based on the R-series which made its debut in the Honda Civic 1.8S, which means its has drive by wire throttle (which has some considerable lag when I tried out throttle response) and a SOHC design with i-VTEC. Click here to learn more of the unique technological features of the R-series engines.
The interior is refreshingly fully dark colored and black in a sea of cars with semi black and beige interiors. A dark interiors lends to the cars activity-centric image. The steering wheel is leather wrapped with a similar futuristic design like the Honda Civics, while the dash meters is disappointing not the self-illuminating type like found on the Accord. While its not as vibrant as Id wish it to be, its sufficiently easy to read, plus the center LCD multi-information panel is easy to read with a white on grayish background. I also wish there was an option for leather seats, perhaps this will be offered later on just like how the Accord 2.0 recently gained the option for leather seats. Despite not being leather, theyre pretty comfortable and they do provide some support during cornering, though for what the CR- costs I would expect electric adjustable seats.
Interior space is abundant. There are two different compartments in the center console, as well as two cup holders for the front passengers. The glove box is moderate in size, nothing amazing there, but there is another compartment above the glove box for you to keep your sunshades perhaps? Another small cubbyhole is to the right of the steering wheel for toll coins or whatnot. There are also two more storage areas below the center dash area, but those seem too far down and out of reach to be used often. Perhaps Honda should have connected the dash to the console between the seats and create another storage area. The gear shifter on the dash and the foot-operated parking brake have created an empty space there between the two front passengers but I somehow feel it hasnt been used to the fullest of potential. For example, there is no hook in that area for you to secure plastic bags or shopping bags there.
The dashboard controls are very easy to use and can be learned easily through common sense, no need to go wading through a thick manual there. Very intuitive. It also looks classy, a property something I did not find the Accords dash because of a sole wrongly chosen font face – the CR-Vs instead is perfect. The in-car entertainment system consists of a 6-disc CD changer and audio quality was acceptable, better than a baseline set, but even beginner audiophiles may want to upgrade it as playing it above normal sound levels (something like above the volume level 24) resulted in some bad distortion.
The headlamps also have decent throw of light, giving good visibility in the night. Fog lamps come as standard, and I recommend having them on all the time because they significantly illuminate the area on the road nearer to the car, plus enhance the cars aesthetics as the CR-V does look good when the fog lamps are on. You can turn on the fog lamps via a secondary knob on the main headlamp and signal control stalk on the right side of the steering column.
The boot is pretty versatile, coming with a double deck cargo space by default. The second deck which can withstand loads up to 10kg can be removed and the boot can be turned into a single load area, which can be further extended in two steps. First step is tilting the rear seats forward – in this case the extended load area is further shielded by two extending pieces of canvas connected via the rear load cover and the seats. If you have trouble visualizing what I am saying, there are some photos in this post showing what I mean. You can also fully push the 60:40 split seats down flat to create a large loading area in the rear. The swing door has been replaced by an upward lightweight hatch, which owes most of it lightness from the fact that there is no spare tyre hooked onto it, instead the spare tyre is underneath the load area.
Some more nice features to mention: rear doors open almost 90 degrees, which makes rear seat entry very easy. There is an AUX input so you can connect your iPod, MP3 player or whatever device you want. Security features include dual i-SRS front airbags, active headrests, anti-lock brakes and electronic brake distribution.
I managed to get 7.5 km per litre of mileage while I was driving pretty aggressively, and when I toned down to a more sedated style of driving I managed to get about 9 to 9.5 km per litre. This was calculated using the on-board fuel computer, which also featured a real time fuel consumption gauge which can train you to be a light footed driver. I got about 400km from a 58 litre full tank of petrol which was about RM110 thanks to some heavy footed driving due to the engine’s insufficient torque. My test drive session was not long enough to gauge the fuel consumption with a much more sedate driving style.
I’ve devised a way to get good fuel economy with the CR-V on the highway, or rather with the R-series engine and 5-speed gearbox with 2 overdrive gears combination. On the highway, simply set your cruise control to 80km/h or 100km/h and let the cruise control perform the throttle work. 80km/h in 5th gear will usually settle at 1,500rpm, and 100km/h at 2,000rpm. With the SOHC i-VTEC engines or any Economy i-VTEC engine, the engine works particularly fuel efficient under 2,000rpm. Using this method, the real time fuel consumption gauge soared to 20km per litre. It is harder to keep fuel consumption that low if you are modulating the throttle with your own foot.
As a conclusion, the Honda CR-V appeared to me as a very pleasant car, youll hardly find anything to complain about it as its very well executed for what it is. There are three bad points about the new CR-V. One is its slightly Korean-ish looks, which hopefully youll be able to bypass as you wont regret it if you do decided to purchase this. But you must always remember not to expect too much from it. It is an SUV after all. A good one at that. As a lifestyle vehicle, perhaps some audio system upgrades are necessary, then itll be perfect. Second, it seems slightly low on specs for its price. I want electrically powered seat adjustment and high intensity discharge xenon headlamps. Thirdly, there are some obvious cut cutting measures applied to the car, for example there is no hood insulator material under the hood, which strikes me off as surprising! Build quality is very good throughout the car except for an unsightly gap that looked like misalignment of parts near the A pillar on the left of the dashboard.
Other than that, why not? Youll have to pay RM147,800 to own it. There are also two Modulo packages which brings the retail price up to RM155,160 for the Premium package and RM151,820 for the Standard package. If you are a Modulo Privilege Card Holder, you get a discount – RM154,200 for the Premium package and RM151,300 for the Standard package.
It’s a great car for the wifey or those who want a pleasant drive and not looking for anything to excite you. Because a pleasant drive and some utility is pretty much all it gives.
For more technical details on the 2007 Honda CR-V, check out this post: 2007 Honda CR-V launched in Malaysia.
Related Posts:
2007 Honda CR-V launched in Malaysia
2007 Honda CR-V Crash Test
Video: 2007 Honda CR-V Ad Video – CRAVE
Video: 2007 Honda CR-V Ad Video – Australian Ad
Video: 2007 Honda CR-V Ad Video – Beach
Video: 2007 Honda CR-V Ad Video – Chocolate
Video: 2007 Honda CR-V Ad Video – Coffee
Video: 2007 Honda CR-V Ad Video – Pop Corn
Video: 2007 Honda CR-V Ad Video – Snow
Looking to sell your car? Sell it with Carro.
Err..i m the first one.??..i love with its interior..simple but smart.
i having a test drive on it.. not bad at whole..like driving a normal sedan but with higher vision..
but not really like the front grill design.. like a fat man with double jaw..
hopefully later i can accept it..
Still rather pricey for a SUV. It's worth considering alternatives like 2nd hand/unreg Harriers. Equally confortable if not more and much better looking.
the best quote i got for the crv review in AutoCar magazine was " it seemed that honda engineers were holidaying in korea" !!
Paul,
I think there's some miscalculation regarding the fuel economy/consumption, or rather a mis-definition of the on-board meter in your report.
400km per 58 litres = 6.8 km/litre or 14.5 litre / 100km
I think the onboard calculation should be km/litre, rather than litre per 100 km.
This would make more sense, with a heavy footed driving giving you only 7.5km/l, and a sedated style better fuel economy of 9.5km/l.
Otherwise, it doesn't make sense because you use more fuel when you are heavy footed.
Thanks
Quote:
"I managed to get 7.5 liters per 100km of fuel economy while I was driving pretty aggressively, and when I toned down to a more sedated style of driving I managed to get about 9 to 9.5 liters per 100km….."
Shouldn't this be the other way round?
^ Yeah, I am confused with the fuel consumption figure you quoted, Paul.
I'm sorry Paul, but I can't help but feel that Honda's marketing people have somehow brainwashed you a little bit, being apologetic about the car and all. Maybe you like it?
Not to expect too much of it? You have to pay good money for it. And there are plenty of choices. How does it stack up?
Otherwise, might I suggest a camel. It does the job, if you don't expect it to do what it isn't designed to do.
I'm sorry for being offensive somewhat, but you're not doing your loyal readers any favours by doing Honda's marketing people's job for them.
My humblest opinions.
And yes it is ugly. Must have been designed by the same guy that did the SsangYong Stavic.
Paul and Cacing: I think the mileage calculation is all wrong. You are talking about kilomter / liter not about liters / 100 kilometers. That's quite obvious when you talk about 58 Liters for 400 Kilometers, which makes 6.8 kilometers / liter. That translates into a horrible 14.5 liters / 100 kilometers. That's about as much as an X5 with 8 cylinder engine.
In addition, trip computers have cheated on me quite a lot. What I get at the pump is what I trust in and I think in your case it was 58 liters for 400 kilometers. Wouldn't be amazing if the trip computer still showed 7.5 liters / 100 kilometers while you fill your 58 liters in.
Thats strange, I thought that this new CR-V looked mighty fine looking ever since they launched it. The new suave designs on the exterior and interior plus some chrome bits made it look more up-market than the previous designs.
It has a more luxurious and pronounced look thanks to the new grille but with a good lower center of gravity giving it good cornering capability. Although the torque wont lurch the driver forward with anticipation, it is one of those engines that keep revving and pushing the speeds but with a touch of class minus the uncomfortable ride.
Think about it guys, instead of criticizing the price tag which is a little higher than it was before think of it as better holding value when it comes to selling it as a used car. Look on the bright side of things once in a while.
The front bumper looks weird, like a duckbill. The way the rear window slopes which is of tangent with the roof line also looks weird, somewhat like the Stavic/Keyron. UGLY! Honda cars are becoming uglier with each new model i.e. the new Odyssey, the City, the new CRV, the facelifted Accord (tail). They should really change the people in their design studio.
Ugly. car…….. must kill bangle……. but otherwise a good example of what honda's language is heading too..
Personally when i tested the car… i found it cosy…… ( the 2nd gen crv felt cavernous by comparison) … a little tight… (i am 6' 2") and the controls are intuitive.. i fa alittle small to read…. engine low…( copying subaru style?) and quality of dash materials… variable ( tested two different cars at two dealers…. cousin's wife with honda…..) engine rough.. .(until 8k km….) unresponsive ( almost as bad as the 1st gen,,,) fuel consumption marginally better than 2nd gen
(ecu upgrade/ remapping is bound to solve these woes) as car is lighter…
frankly… if a lifestyle vehicle is wanted….( to be driven) a scooby forester fits your needs better…. for points a to b a crv is sufficient.
PS: a scooby is bigger too…. just be light footed and you fc will be the same…
when i first saw it on the road, i thought the rear is nice, but when i see the front end, hmph, it looks like a SsangYong…
silverfish: Your comment did not come across as offensive to me. What is the use of this comment section if we cannot discuss the topic at hand? It's refreshing everytime I see a comment unrelated to bashing Proton, even if it is bashing me. :)
On the contrary, what I mean by not to expect too much of it is to undo Honda's big claims that the CR-V gives a car-like driving experience. It is just more car-like than before. So you shouldn't expect it to be car-like, and you'll be satisfied with it. I put that in to introduce how I am going to evaluate the CR-V. In the end, it is still an SUV, and I evaluated the CR-V as what it is, primarily an SUV and secondarily a Honda.
I say this because there are many associated properties that people expect a Honda to have, thanks to the fun high revving Civics of the past. I've edited the blog post to spell this out clearly, in case there are any misunderstandings. I did not mean to ask people to "give face" when evaluating it.
I do think it is pricey and have mentioned it in my article, along with suggestions on what extra specs should be in the car to justify it's price.
As for how it stacks up, unfortunately I have not driven any of it's competitors in price range therefore cannot comment on this. This is the problem when you're starting out doing something like this, I do not have enough experience to give comments. But what I am giving you is what I feel truly from my heart. It's pleasant, but not exciting. But for an SUV, pleasant is what it's supposed to give.
Pray do tell if you disagree with me, it'll keep this discussion interesting.
Hi Paul,
Nice explaination!
Looks like Kyron's brother though.
Paul; Thanks for the clarification.
I've recently had a close look at a couple of Honda models, particularly the face lifted Accord which I test drove a bit. Generally, I found the quality of materials used in the car's interior quite disappointing, especially the Accord considering the price you pay for one of those. I didn't try the new CRV so I don't know how it compares. What did you think of it?
Then there's the performance. Despite the sales person banging on about how the 2.4 litre engine is more powerful than the previous one, I found myself wanting for more go. You put your foot down and there's a significant hike in noise but the acceleration is less than rapid. Mind you my expectations are less than high.
The sales person's explanation is that because of the VTEC characteristics of the engine, you really need to cane the engine to get it going. Ummm…right. The car is pretty heavy to begin with, so what it really needs is a lot of low down grunt to make driving this sort of car the way it should be, and that is leisurely instead of having to rev the bits out of it.
I suppose somebody tweaked the engine for more fuel economy (like the CRV perhaps). I'm not sure if they are successful but the lack of grunt sure means you'll need to be a bit heavier with your right foot to get anywhere in time and avoid being labeled a vegetarian. Overtaking, for instance, would be less stressful with more low down poke.
So, you can imagine what my thoughts are on a smaller, less powerful engine, being tasked to move a bigger car in the CRV.
Yeah the 2.4L Accord power figure went up but at what RPM? And when this happens, the lower end torque gets sacrificed. Result – drivability down!
yes… that's true… honda has some issues with torque…
(it's an Ecu issue)
i do agree with Paul with what he wrote about the CR-V. Its comfortable. I drove the CR-V and the only thing that hit me is its boring but comfy. I am from the side that hate the look but the driver's ergonomic is superb. Everything is within reach, easy operation and space is plenty.
The price is not on the high side but on the very high side…!!! its close to RM150k now for the basic model and it don't come with self-illuminating meter, electric seat, HID or leather. I figure that is an expensive price to pay.
Also the phrase "foot operated hand brake" is a little mouthful and sounds funny too. Parking brake sound better, rite?
I liked that you're one of the braver motor journalists here, Paul :). No matter how ugly a car is, it always end up wit "looks are subjective" type of comments, bt this time, you just simply say it out that you're aware many thinks this car is ugly n nt to cover it up wit the same old, same old, comment. Btw, until today, I do get used to seeing a BMW as much as I get used to being tortured.
Yes, the Honda engineers must've been holidayin in Korea. I wonder what's rly happening there in Japan, even Japanese animes now hv a lot of Korean names at the ED credit, I dunno what they do exactly, bt the co-operation of Japanese n Korean so far hv oni resulted in one good thing: great Japanese anime. All else, em……..
RM147k++ with no leather seats sounds friggin expensive. If one rly needs to hv an SUV, I can oni think of X-Trail n Escape on my radar, maybe a camel as well. The CR-V hv been killed by its looks n price. Also, for an SUV, I think driving dynamism n pleasure isn't the main priority, cuz if that's what a person wants, just get a saloon or a hatchback. Just my 2 cents.
ya know…..this cr-v front looks like jay leno"s chin! hahaha!
my dad had a 1st generation cr-v, very comfy and spacious inside, but it is not a driver's car
somehow the naza sorento looks quite good compared to this. If Honda service card can get discount? everytime service get 15/25% discount
Err.. If i want more power.. at RM150k, I think i will get the face lifted X-trail, just lunched a few days ago.. Engine is 2.5L CVTC with new interior and bodykits.. not bad.. but still the old engine and transmission…I wish they can offer some diesel for us..
Wow, I like the customisable back storage space, especially how you can tier it, very nice touch.
Nice exterior…interior..looks bad together with the accessories for that price bracket…don't think it will sell that many.
Still the X trail…..better.
I dun geddit… why make it more car-like when they already have the Stream?? In this case if im looking for a people mover i'll go for d new Stream, at least it looks gorgeous.
Wow the A-pillar gap looks bad. I thought normally Japanese companies very particular with the cars they loan out to media. I'm sure heads will roll in Melaka factory QC dept once they see this.
Also, why so cheapskate RM147.8k but no hood insulator!?
The interior's door handles, look damn weird!
Downright ugly lar! Skip!
Weird, so many people critisising the looks, while I'm thinking this is one of the best looking SUV ever:p
Have seen so many unit on the road already. The market can not be wrong, this is one of the best SUV in it's market segment.
Something you might have missed out too, Paul.
Check our the gap inside the front door hinges area against the body. The gap is actually filled with a polyform, those stuff that secure any fragile items in a packaging (i.e. electrical items)! I was utterly surprised as such stuff would disintegrate in a long run.
Drive ability, I do agreed with you that it's sweeter than the previous CRV but power-wise, the lags really shows itself when climbing slopes (not hills yet) or even on a sudden acceleration.
Overall, for RM150k I'd think twice but really there is nothing in the market at this price package and new design (however subjective it maybe). X-trail, Harrier is an old ride. New RAV4 is too expensive. Sorento & Sportage is Naza/Kia (still tough to trust Korean cars) despite it's cheaper!
just don't 'click'…
no love at first sight, no go..
Side view remind me of the Kyron. This new generation CRV is less attractive, in fact the cheaper Sorento Novus edition (RM120++ in KK) looks much much more attractive.
For a price of 155k and sub 2500cc, i still prefer the Fortuner – more macho and more SUV like. X-trail & Escape are too small.
I LOVE THIS CAR.
NO OF THE CAR IN INDIAN MARKET CAN TAKE PLACE OF THIS CAR
(IN SUV CATEGORY)
I recently wrote a suggestion to Honda Malaysia to address the fault and idea for the CRV.
The idea is :-
1) HID for the headlamp
2) Sparetyre hook onto the rear hatch
3) A DOHC I-Vtec or better 2.2ltr DOHC I-Vtec engine
4) Re-design the front grill
5) A Vsc for the CRV and Realtime 4WD
6) Better In car entertainment for CRV
7) Rear air conditioner
8) More storage area for CRV-I mean genius one
Thanks
Waiting 7 seater CRV. Not only for medium size familly but practical as well.