The CR-V is a major heavy hitter in the compact SUV class. It’s Honda’s best seller, and there’s a high chance you’ll see at least a few of them on the road within minutes of leaving your driveway. The most recent generation, built on the same platform as the 10th generation Civic, was introduced in Detroit back in October of 2016 before going on sale two months later. For being built on the same platform as the Civic, I was curious if this new CR-V captured any of those strengths that the Civic had in its driving experience. Did we finally get a CR-V that can rival the sporty dynamics of the Mazda CX-5? Below are some of my driving impressions.
First setting off in the CR-V, it feels a little bigger than it looks from the outside. The front hood is large and bulbous, and it feels a little taller and wider than some of the other compact entires. From just sitting behind the wheel, the CR-V reminds me a bit of the current Mazda CX-5 with its curvy, athletic styling cues and slightly larger body style. Already I feel like I’m in something with a totally different mission statement than the preceding CR-V’s.
This is a crossover SUV, no particular entry in this class is going to handle like a sports car. The CR-V still retains much of its soft, easy to drive nature from the previous generation. Unlike the Civic, there’s simply not much about the CR-V’s driving experience that feels exciting or noteworthy. You still get that simple, minimalistic, “step on the gas and go” kind of feel. The CR-V still somewhat reminds me of a 9th generation Honda Accord in the driving experience, just with a softer suspension and lifted up a few inches. I suppose they wanted CR-V owners to feel more “at home” upon upgrading to the new generation, and for that I can’t really blame them. The CR-V has a very loyal fanbase, many people who upgrade to the new CR-V are doing it because they want to trade in their old CR-V. Kind of like how every iteration of the iPhone has a sleeker exterior design but runs on a nearly identical interface and layout as the previous one. It would make perfect sense for Honda to keep the CR-V feeling familiar, and I think the new 1.5T engine is enough of an upgrade to differentiate the current generation from the previous generation. That said, everything still feels very familiar, and very typical Honda CR-V.
When I first got going, I noticed that the accelerator wasn’t very responsive. I’m used to Hondas feeling a little more zippy and responsive, and the CR-V doesn’t quite carry those same attributes. I wouldn’t say that there’s a feeling of dead travel, but you just have to put more effort into the throttle before those RPMs start climbing. It’s a pretty modernized and linear feel, but also just a little different from Honda products of the past.
The CR-V that I drove had the standard 2.4 liter 4 cylinder engine, a carryover from the previous CR-V. It’s a good engine with a smooth power band, but it’s just not all that quick or powerful in the CR-V’s application. The midrange pull feels peppy, but it takes a little while to get there due to the more relaxed programming of the CVT transmission. As I mentioned previously, the acceleration feels much like the 9th generation 2013-2017 Honda Accord, just a little slower and more toned down. The Accord responds a little quicker and it feels a little more powerful in the lower rev ranges than the CR-V with the 2.4 engine. The 1.5T engine isn’t much of an upgrade, either. That engine actually has one less lb. ft. of torque compared to the base 2.4, and it only has 6 additional horses. The torque and horsepower in the turbocharged engine peak slightly earlier in the rev range compared to the 2.4 engine, but from what I’ve read, the acceleration feels about the same as the carryover 2.4.
Once you get moving, the CR-V accelerates fine. The power comes on smoothly and it all feels evenly distributed. The engine is quiet and it just kind of whisks you up to speed. The CVT helps to keep the engine RPMs in the optimum ranges, but I wasn’t as impressed with the CVT in this car as I was in some of the other Honda products I’ve driven. For example, the Civic’s CVT feels more responsive and eager to rev, and it mimics the feel of a traditional stepped automatic very well. The CR-V’s CVT (say that three times fast) definitely feels more sluggish and unwilling. Unfortunately, I think the rubber band effect just comes out a little too much, especially when you consider Honda’s reputation for building some of the best CVTs in the business. It always feels mushy when starting off from a dead stop, and you have to bury your foot into the gas to get some passing power, at which point the transmission just feels slow to raise the revs. It just takes longer to get moving than I would have expected. Once you do get the passing power, the transmission holds the revs and streamlines through the ratios pretty well, so it’s not a bad CVT in any stretch of the imagination. I was just expecting it to feel more peppy and responsive. The CVT usually tries to keep you out of the higher revs, and you have to put your foot down somewhat hard for the transmission to switch into its lower ratios.
When you’re just accelerating normally off the line, the transmission takes some time to engage, but once it does everything feels refined. There’s no aggressive “fake shifting” like in Nissan CVTs, it just goes about its business and keeps the engine in the adequate rev ranges. No clunks, no awkward pauses, no jerkiness. It does clunk a little if you randomly slam the gas, but overall the transmission performs decently, albeit feeling more subdued and toned down, however most CR-V buyers aren’t going to notice that.
In terms of handling, again, it doesn’t feel like the Civic. The chassis remains composed around turns, but there is some body lean and you can tell that this car definitely has its limitations. The CR-V certainly isn’t “unstoppable”, nor will it lead you to believe that it is. The tires will squeal if you’re going a little too fast and the CR-V doesn’t really egg you on like a Mazda CX-5 would. The CR-V has much of the same feeling of comfort that the Rav4 has, just with a little more precision and connectedness. It’s not the best handling crossover, but it still strikes a good balance between comfort and security. Around town you can take corners just as fast as you would in any other normal car, and the chassis never really gives you any surprises. Everything feels refined and linear. The CR-V is very unbiased in the handling department, and the driving experience won’t really offend anyone.
As I mentioned above, the CR-V isn’t the sportiest, but it feels very predictable. Going around a corner, the steering feels smooth and linear, and the CR-V pitches itself into corners with good accuracy. There’s no feeling of vagueness or sloppiness. You wouldn’t guess it from observing other CR-V drivers on the road, but it’s super easy to keep this car within the lines, and it tracks confidently with wherever you point it. Even at highway speeds, the CR-V remains nicely planted, the steering responds with smooth fluidic motions, and the car points straight as an arrow. The steering feels decently quick to respond, and it’s easy to tell where the front tires are. There’s no weirdness or confusion as to where the car directs itself, and even though the CR-V isn’t the sportiest, it still feels nice and maneuverable.
In terms of actual steering feel, it is pretty ordinary and isolated. It’s definitely more plain compared to what you would get from a Honda product 10-15 years ago. It’s pretty light, but not uncomfortably loose. It feels quite numb and devoid of feedback as well. I think the steering in this car has far more precision and predictability compared to the Rogue and the Rav4, but it’s still quite mundane and ‘crossover-ish”. Most people won’t really notice much about it.
The highway ride in the CR-V is really nice. The vehicle doesn’t really protest being driven faster, and I didn’t encounter a situation where I felt like the vehicle was floaty or lumbering. That in itself is more than you can say about many compact crossover entires. Again, the on-tap passing power doesn’t feel crisp or responsive like it does in a CX-5 or an Escape, but once you do get the passing power, the CR-V does its thing without any problems. Easy to drive, easy to pass (despite some drama from the CVT), and overall this would be a great car for long road trips.
The brakes are very typical of Honda product. The pedal is decently stiff, the brakes bite down well and they are very easy to modulate. The brakes have somewhat of an older feel to them, and I appreciate that. They remind me of a Honda product from the early 2000s. They feel raw and connected, give you a good sense of where the bite is, they provide smooth and robust stopping power, and there’s never any weirdness or vagueness with them.
The ride quality in the CR-V feels smooth over regular pavement, but there’s just something that feels “off” about the dampening to me. I found found the CR-V to be slightly jarring over certain road surfaces. This car will handle most normal roads with finesse, but rough patches are not the CR-V’s forte. I’m not saying that the CR-V feels like a buckboard; its actually a very smooth riding crossover. However, the suspension gets a little jolty over dips or slight pavement imperfections. It’s a slightly stiffer ride compared to what you would get in a Rogue or a Rav4. The CR-V still has very competitive ride quality, and it feels smooth and controlled most of the time, but you won’t be fooled into thinking you’re driving something expensive or premium. This has always been a somewhat typical trait of Hondas, and the current CR-V is no exception.
Road noise is average. It’s definitely quieter than previous generations of the CR-V, but you still hear wind and passing cars. Other entries like the Escape, Rogue, and the Cherokee seem to be slightly quieter, but the road noise in the CR-V is never loud or intruding. You don’t hear anything in terms of tire noise, braking noise, or any other types of noises associated with cheapness or cost cutting. The engine is also pretty silent unless you hammer it.
The visibility out of the CR-V is decent, but not great. The front hood is slightly obstructive at first, but when you’re out on the road you don’t really notice it. The real visibility issue I had was the blind spot in the C pillars, between the rear window and the side windows. When you look in your rearview mirror, it seems like the sides of the rear window are blocked off just a little too much, hampering your rearward view of the adjacent lanes. The side mirrors are also a little strange to look out of, considering the CR-V’s curvy side profile. If you set the mirrors to align just slightly with the side of the car, you’ll see a ton of crazy angles and awkward protrusions. The CR-V is still an easy car to see out of, but I would be lying if I said that the styling didn’t intrude just a little bit.
Overall, the CR-V is just a really good, honest, crossover SUV. Many people will appreciate how familiar it feels, as it still drives very much like a CR-V even with the available new engine. I was just a little disappointed that it didn’t feel quite as sporty as I thought it would. I was certainly expecting it to feel a little more modern and “Honda-like” in the driving experience. The CR-V is smooth, precise, and connected, but also kind of mundane and deadpan. The new Civic is built on a great chassis and handles really well, and I thought Honda would also be bringing the CR-V into Mazda CX-5 territory with the introduction of this new generation. While this new CR-V is very composed and car-like, it’s still softer than the CX-5, and the CR-V just doesn’t feel designed for spirited driving. It has the same mission has all the other CR-Vs before it: just a smooth, reliable, comfortable, car-like driving crossover, and that’s really all that most people want. If you’re looking for a crossover that feels comfortable and relaxing without any feeling of vagueness or sloppiness, the CR-V should satisfy that requirement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF1mh4P-w90&feature=youtu.be