2015 Honda CR-V Touring AWD Update 6: Not a Constantly Racing Vehicle ~ Agya Club Indonesia

Selasa, 09 Februari 2016

2015 Honda CR-V Touring AWD Update 6: Not a Constantly Racing Vehicle

13.41 Agya, Agya Club, Agya Club ID, Agya Club Indo, Agya Club Indonesia, Toyota

We hate to break it to you, but CR-V does not stand for Constantly Racing Vehicle. Although the long-term 2015 Honda CR-V is no sports car, it continues to perform well after months behind the wheel. Because after you stop fiddling with the infotainment system of that new car in the showroom, the actual driving experience still matters a great deal.

Even with the high-end Touring model’s upsized 18-inch wheels, the CR-V rides well. The crossover isolates you from some but not all road imperfections, as you’d expect from a vehicle that’s completely loaded around $34,000 including destination. Body roll is kept in check, and communicative steering is a plus. The CR-V never feels as small as a Fit or as big as a Pilot, but it always performs competently, whether in the city or traveling on winding roads.

Sure, I’d enjoy the CR-V more if it were quicker, but our all-wheel-drive long-termer’s 8.9-second 0-60-mph time is in line with a couple other high-volume AWD competitors we’ve tested, including a 2013 Toyota RAV4 at 8.7 seconds and a 2014 Nissan Rogue at 9.1 seconds. Even considering how slow our CR-V becomes in Econ mode—in a previous update we discovered that 0-60 takes a Motor Trend-tested 9.7 seconds—I’d rather have Honda continue to improve efficiency. As long as the fuel tank is of a decent size, a more efficient daily driver visits the gas station less frequently and doesn’t cost quite as much to maintain. Tell us what you think: Would you find more appealing a quicker CR-V or a more efficient CR-V? Considering the new 2016 Civic manages to do both simultaneously, maybe we’ll see improvements for both on the next-gen CR-V.

Interestingly, the 2016-model-year CR-V sees cuts in EPA-rated fuel economy. The 2016 CR-V adds a new SE trim above the LX trim but is otherwise unchanged, yet from 2015 to 2016, fuel economy drops from 27/34 mpg city/highway to 26/33 mpg with front-wheel drive and from 26/33 mpg to 25/31 mpg with all-wheel drive. That’s a drop of about 4 and 6 percent for AWD models in the city and on the highway and about 4 and 3 percent for FWD models in the city and on the highway, respectively. None is an especially significant difference, but they’re moving in the wrong direction. Why? A few changes have been made to the 2016 CR-V to address the vibration issue that a few 2015 CR-V owners reported. Even so, the 2016 CR-V’s combined city/highway EPA ratings for an AWD model still beat those of the Chevrolet Equinox (23 mpg), Mazda CX-5 (26 mpg), Toyota RAV4 (25 mpg), and Ford Escape 1.6 EcoBoost (25 mpg), tie the Subaru Forester 2.5i, and fall short by 1 mpg to the Nissan Rogue. In Real MPG testing, our AWD 2015 CR-V hit 23.0/28.8 mpg compared to an AWD 2015 Rogue’s 22.6/28.9 mpg.

As noted in the first update, a small number of CR-V owners have reported experiencing a vibration through the driver’s seat. For our long-term CR-V, the vibration only occurs at idle and is subtle and intermittent. Product improvements weren’t ready at our last service, but they became available in late in 2015—we’ll get the CR-V at our next service and hope to test how the crossover’s fuel economy might be affected. Honda notes that the vibration has no effect on reliability.

I’m happy with how the CR-V actually drives overall, but like most vehicles in this class, it could be a little quicker or more efficient. Still, despite the CR-V only offering active safety tech on the top trim level, it presents a compelling argument for Accord buyers who are willing to sacrifice a tad in acceleration and efficiency for a versatile and spacious crossover.

In a future update, I’ll discuss one of the more controversial aspects of modern Hondas: the lack of a volume knob.

More on our long-term 2015 Honda CR-V Touring AWD here: