Two years on: Honda CR-V

The current Honda CR-V has been around the market for nearly two and a half years. KON takes one out to see how it has aged since launch.

—

Some years back, a certain manufaturer proudly proclaimed itself as “Asia’s Answer to BMW”. A bold claim, one that continues to haunt them. However, to their credit, things have since improved on their side, and they are now longer making such empty boasts to the public anymore. It nevertheless shows that there is something about BMWs that make everybody want to copy them, or be associated with them.

Just look at the number of aftermarket bodykits modeled after the E60 5-series, and you’ll get what I mean. I’ve seen them in even Vivas and Myvis. Another popular BMW-aping item are the Taiwan-made ‘angel eye’ headlamps, used mainly by Wiras, Gen.2s and Vioses. The trend has since moved on to Audi’s daytime running LEDs, but you get the picture.

This whole BMW-mimicking business isn’t limited to just the aftermarket tuners. Mainstream manufacturers have been borrowing Mr Bangle’s styling cues too. You might say that things like like the Hoffmeister kink, double kidney grille, and flame surfacing are BMW’s design trademarks, but truth is, they are everywhere. Lexus now features the Hoff too, and who can forget the Naza Sorento re-interpretation of the double kidneys?

Although they aren’t saying it, but Honda seems to be taking quite a few lessons off the BMW rulebook in recent years. Their recent designs feature very bold lines, and some have a very “love-me or hate-me” look. None more so than the Honda CR-V, whose looks has still yet to grow on me after two and a half years in the market.

It actually looks fine from the rear three-quarter. The rear fascia is neatly designed, and the unpainted lower surrounds give it a hint of ruggedness. The aerofoil-shaped windows also give it a very distinctive side profile too. Problem is when you go up front. I like bold design cues, but the front fascia of the CR-V simply lacks coherence. And that’s being kind. I’ll give Honda credit for being brave with their design, but sorry, I’m not sold this time.

The CR-V featured in this review is the fifth car from Honda Malaysia in our 1st Autoworld Safety & Defensive Driving Course after the City, Jazz, Accord 2.0 and Accord 2.4. It also happens to be the oldest among the quintet, with its WPX registry prefix indicating a March 2007 date of registration. I know this, because I was shopping for a car when this number plate prefix first came out.

Because of its tender years, the cabin has shown signs of considerable aging. However, considering that this car has been hammered by one journalist after another for over two years, it has held itself together rather well. There were no noticeable rattles or squeaks, but the upper glove compartment left a glaring gap at the side after being closed.

Considering the boldly styled front end, the dashboard is designed with surprisingly simple lines. The audio head unit is integrated, and air-conditioning features dual-zone control. Compared to the Accord, it features fewer buttons, but that’s good because it means a less cluttered dash.

The dashboard-mounted transmission selector lever for the 5A/T has positions for Park, Reverse, Neutral, Drive, ‘2’ and ‘1’. Unlike the other Hondas we drove that weekend, the CR-V had an OD OFF button, labeled as ‘D3′ at the side of the lever, to manually limit selection to the first three gears. There is now a foot-operated parking brake in place of the hand brake. Operating it is straight forward, but locating it with your foot, especially when it’s disengaged and out of sight, is a little bit trickier. It is, of course, a matter of the driver getting used to it.

What’s not fine getting used to, is the location of the power window switch panel. It is positioned a couple of inches too far backwards. Driving through tollgates, you’ll need a slight contortion of your arms to operate the switches. This is an ergonomic error which I simply did not expect from a Honda.

That aside, the rest of the interior is reasonably well laid out, with plenty of storage space for your handphones, Touch & Go cards, water bottles, and various other trinkets. The seats also provide good support, and there is plenty of space for the five occupants it is legally allowed to carry.

However, every good SUV these days need to be able to reconfigure itself to carry less people and more cargo in an instant. Therefore, a flexible seating arrangement is a must. Honda’s brochure of the CR-V showed up to six different possible seating and cargo-carrying arrangements by various folding methods of the seats. That’s fantastic stuff, but unfortunately, the act of folding seats was a very sweat drenching affair. It was nowhere near as user-friendly to operate as those I sampled recently on the Captiva, Pajero Sport, or even Honda’s very own Jazz. Perhaps the mechanism is aging, but the seats of the test car just wouldn’t fold nicely into place as advertised. Fortunately, we found that even with all the rear seats up, there is still plenty of cargo space at the rear overhangs, with a parcel shelf usefully giving us two levels of storage.

The car I tested just before this CR-V, was the Accord 2.0, which coincidentally had the same R20A 2.0 SOHC i-VTEC powerplant. According to the specs given, the one on the CR-V has a slightly lower compression ratio (10.5 against 10.6), and a lower horsepower rating (147hp vs 154hp). It is instead tuned to give more torque, but only slightly, of 190Nm@4,200rpm, compared to the Accord’s 189 @ 4,300. The differences appear minor on paper, but they are marked on the road.

The CR-V is 65kg heavier than the Accord 2.0, but it feels a good deal heavier. Where the Accord is lively and responsive on the throttle, the CR-V feels heavy and underpowered. The biggest challenge lies when driving on single carriageway trunk roads. Overtaking, even with the ‘D3′ button perpetually pressed, often requires careful planning so that you don’t become the front decorative piece of an oncoming lorry. Honda should consider bringing in the 2.4-litre K24Z or the 2.2-litre diesel N22A engine, both fitted in overseas incarnations of the CR-V.

However, where the CR-V lacks in power, it makes up for in its road manners. Although it takes a while to get up to speed, once up there, it is stable and composed. Its ride is easily better than the harder sprung Captiva we test drove last month, though I personally felt that the Chevy handled better.

For the RM147,800 Honda asks for the CR-V, you are getting a fairly competent SUV. There is little doubt that of the engineering excellence under its panels. There is also little doubt that the CR-V would give you years of painless and problem-free motoring. Looks aside, there is really little that Honda got wrong with the CR-V, but there is also little that is special about it. A few things can be improved in the facelift.

It is really ironic. Of the five cars Honda lent us for the Defensive Driving Course, the one I liked most was, unexpectedly, the Accord 2.0. The CR-V, with the same engine, turned out to be one I liked the least.