Indeed, and it's clear they took influence from him when seeing the storage area sizes of the Civic and said "always, you have to leave a da space" and made this.
30 seconds before this video ended, I sat there thinking to myself... why do I watch reviews for cars I have absolutely no interest in, on a Friday evening... and then you reminded me.
Keep in mind that 0-60 was with no additional passengers/cargo... Imagine trying to merge on the highway with 4 passengers. Reminds me when I was driving my friends in a 97 Corolla and had the foot to the floor merging on the highway and people still honked at me because of how slow it was.
I dated a girl in college briefly that had a geo prizm with a 3-speed auto. We took it on a road trip one summer. I don't think I've ever held an accelerator pedal to the floor for so long and with so much terror as when we had to merge onto the interstate. I was fearful a semi going 55 was going to rear end us.
As a kid in middle eastern Europe I used to drive anything from a Fiat 126 with 600cc engine to more "modern" 1.2l , 1.4l , 1.6l Skoda's, VW's and Seats. Bet you any money that 97 Corolla would be considered fast among those...😆
I've made a similar comment, of course we don't expect 0-60 in under 5-6 seconds, but yes, that's 10+s to highway speeds. I didn't even realize that was one person in it.
I test drove this twice and LOVED it, ordered one!! Drives really nice! While I would like to see better MPG, it's the best commuter car for me, especially with the snowy winters!
5:00 I understand this is a commuter car. It doesn't need to go 0-60 in under 5 seconds or be punchy. But damn, that 10+ to 6 seems straight up dangerous for highway merging for example.
On every review of this that I've seen, they floor it and after a couple seconds I literally feel the urge to get out and push. Full fam with cargo on an incline? Better turn on your hazards! I like to imagine a group of sled dogs pulling this thing up a hill with the engine at redline, struggling.
0-60 in 10 seconds is not “dangerous.” People are spoiled. Any 0-60 in single digits was considered quick in 1980s-90s cars. Plenty of econocars and various trucks and vans are much slower 0-60 than this HR-V and they manage fine merging on highways. A normal 0-60 pace getting on a highway without your foot pressed all the way to the floor is probably over 20 seconds.
@@DragonOD_YT It’s fast enough for the class. There are sporty vehicles with more power for people who like to drive hard and fast and waste a lot of gas.
Nah, it's really not a big deal. I have a '16 HR-V and it's totally fast enough for merging and other highway sprints. I live in Utah where the speed limits are higher than most states too.
I feel you glossed over the major pain point of the 2023 HR-V and that being the fuel economy. Vs the direct rival the Corolla Cross its 26/32 is a poor showing vs the 31/33 of the Cross despite both being horribly underpowered for their chassis. That isn’t even including the Hybrid model launching this year. Going up market is well and good, but that is also why the CR-V exists. This feels like it’s lost in a weird middleground where yes, it is an overall nicer vehicle but is that what people want at this stage? Or is it more important to have an affordable efficient vehicle with more space then the ecobox sedan/hatches.
Not to mention that house in real world testing is getting 40 miles per gallon on the highway outperforming the EPA at least on the front wheel drive model whereas so far the testers of the HRV haven't shown great fuel economy
I was actually waiting to pass judgment for a real world loan. Which i probably should of specified ☹️. They had us basically driving up and down twisty mountains the entire time in the Washington state area so naturally i drove like a maniac defeating any real world mpg.
@@jackholmes8105 Yeah that is totally understandable and why these manufacturer preview things suck, but know it helps keep the channel afloat getting early access! Thanks for the reply
CR-V for some reason dictates some premium price for the segment, so there was quite a gap between prev HR-V and CR-V. So I see why Honda decided to move HR-V up a little
When have you scheduled the HR-V vs Corolla Cross drag race? We desperately need to know which is slower. 😂 The Honda 1.5 Turbo and Toyota 2.5 would have probably made the HR-V and Cross more fuel efficient AND quicker as they simply would not have to work as hard as the 2.0 engines. 🤔
In many countries, vehicle taxes are determined by engine displacement. The 2.0 L seems to be the uppermost displacement for an every man's car. Beyond that, vehicle taxes are obscene by American standards.
@@gadeane287 all the more reason it should have used the 1.5 instead of the 2.0. I’d really like to know if that was just a cost saving effort, or something else.
@@gadeane287 This is a model designed very specifically for the North American market as other markets have their own version of the HR-V. No such considerations apply.
I think they do this with the engines because they don’t want people moving away from CR-V or RAV4’s because those vehicles are more expensive. If they stick a little shitbox engine in these cars, it attracts certain kinds of buyers who just don’t care about a better drivetrain. That’s my theory anyways. I test drove a civic 2.0 and a 1.5T, and I picked the 1.5T the difference is just crazy in how they perform.
Damn.... that is some precision while accelerating to 60. I bet this comes as a safety feature in order not to tear low-end-CVT (sorry, no offense) apart with momentum.
@Troy Obviously they will never say something edgy :) I know at least 8 people, (friends and colleagues; like trustworthy, mostly) that had their CVTs replaced in a car that was bought new from 7k to 25k. Nissan and Subarus, though. No Hondas. At least yet.
why does it not put max fuel per combustion chamber vaolume fuel at begining, that would be more effceint if maintaining momentum after that. lotus exige had a computer that can clculate how much torque is required for max speed, such a thing could prevent wheel slip and rev out engine early a little or tell user to do so when building mometum for a hill incline and taking advantage of declines. itd be a meter with the spedometer.
yeah honestly thou without a turbo or hybrid motor this car seem very stupid its pretty much a shitty cx30 less luxurious less refine slower alittle more practicle
Great review on how this vehicle drives and handles. I have the HRV LX AWD, and it’s a wonderful vehicle at a very affordable price tag, while still feeling very luxurious and not skimping on any of the vital and necessary features. I absolutely love my HRV. ❤
The CVT is a show stopper for me. We own a CX-30 AWD and my only complaint is the lack of cargo space. We recently drove our CX-30 from MA to NC. The cargo area was stuffed. However, we averaged over 35 MPG (calculated) on our drive south. Since arriving in western NC, we have driven over 100 miles on the Blue Ridge Parkway. The 6 speed automatic transmission is almost flawless and the car’s handling is secure and predictable (for the price point). Visibility could be better but it’s tolerable. I have owned several Honda products for over 20 years and have thoroughly enjoyed all of them. Before buying the CX-30, I drove the current CR-V and the 2021 HR-V. The mushy and lackluster performance of the CVT torpedoed both cars. We jumped ship from Honda and bought our first Mazda.
I’ve owned a few Hondas and have also gone with Mazda on my last 3 purchases. I have a 2016 Mazda 3 and a 2021 CX-5 currently. All have been flawless and more fun to drive than Hondas of the last 15 years. Congrats on your Mazda. The CX-30 is too tight on cargo area for me also as I travel. The CX-5 is not huge but I’m single and fold the backseat down.
I can relate to Your experience with Honda versus Mazda. After 27 years with Honda I am driving a Mazda CX5 since 2018 and don't regret that for a minute.
Looks great, but as others have already mentioned, bad MPG and slow af make it a no go. I think a city bus has faster acceleration than what we just witnessed in this video
I just dont understand how they fucked up the engine choice. They already decided to use a cvt, why not just mate it to something small like a 1.4l turbo powerplant and call it a day?
@@propertyguru22 sorry, what I meant by acceleration was the ability to go from 0 to 60mph comfortably without feeling like a moped could outrun me entering the freeway. I know this isn’t a sports car, but damm. At least give us the hybrid option from the get go to improve that performance
Because he is clueless on how to drive a CVT equipped vehicle. So called pro. Man, how I wish I could talk to him face to face and inform him that when you punch a CVT equipped vehicle to the floor like he does they actually accelerate slower than if you push it progressively to the floor. The trans will spool up faster and give you better acceleration.
My daily commute involved an uphill on-ramp. I use to own a Fit, and merging onto the freeway was always a bit stressful. Now that it is bigger and heavier, the HRV really needed their 1.5 turbo engine.
For how big the car is now, it really needed the 1.5T or the 2.4L. There's definitely more than enough room in the engine bay, which really shows how large the vehicle has gotten. With the Corolla Cross Hybrid coming out, Honda's already late to the game without a powerful hybrid HR-V from the get go.
The L15 and K24 are not better choices IMO. I would like to see the option for the K20C4 and 10 speed like the accord. The K20C2 is a good option as a base for sheer reliability. For the price they did pretty good IMO.
Only one engine option in the Corolla Cross. Straight from Toyotas website: 2.0-liter 4-cylinder DOHC 16-valve with Dual Variable Valve Timing with intelligence (VVT-i), 169 hp @ 6600 rpm/151 lb.-ft. @ 4400 rpm
No it doesn’t. This is for folks that need space but can’t afford a cr-v. This is how they made it affordable. If you want the luxury of a turbo you’ll buy the cr-v.
4:30 That slow of a takeoff would make some of the short on-ramps in the Northeast dangerous to try using. At bare minimum make enemies of anyone on the highway you inevitably cut off. That cx-30 has a torque converter 6speed auto and optional turbo power tho....
Thank you, this video was an essential piece in my search for a dedicated track csuv. The hrv seems like a true road ripper with that naturally aspirated 2.0L. But I think my money has to go to the big power the NA 2.5L in the cx-30. Can’t wait to break records on track for the awd csuv class. Thank you Jack and Mark for always helping me make the best decisions!
Thanks for the excellent review. When comparing with its competitors I’m surprised you didn’t include the Subaru Crosstrek though, which to me is the class leader in many respects and likely the car that pushed its competitors to come up with the likes of the CX-30/Corolla Cross/HRV in the first place. Still, lots of very useful info on the HRV here, always appreciated.
This was a great review, as usual. I couldn’t help but think about how my very first car was a Honda Civic. I drove it for over 15 years. It was reliable but took over 10 seconds to go from 0 to 60. It got so bad that as my car aged, I dreaded highway driving. I wanted to update to a newer Civic or HRV, but when it came time to replace my car, all I could think about was how scarily slow the acceleration was and the reality that this sluggishness persists even in newer models. I like the design direction Honda has taken with the 2022/2023 Civics and now, the HRV, but as someone who has willed my car to go faster merging onto highways, the 2023 HRV is a disappointment. My old car was slow AF and unacceptably so at that; I wouldn’t want to go back to that or encourage others to do the same.
@@CheeseTheAnimator_onGoAnimate If you didn't need the higher space cargo utility of the HR-V, the Camry SE is definitely a winner and my other consideration for a few grand more, but the N/A 4 cylinder has a lot of power, and reliable conventional automatic transmission and great handling and interior room and decent trunk space. Probably the best reliable mid sized sedan now.
Honda... Thank you for delivering another flavor of the month. I can't wait for you to add giant fender flares like on the Ridgeline HPV. Please Jack it up a half inch and add a primary color and put an "X" in front of the name so I feel good about buying an off-road vehicle.
"Lack of interior refinement compared to the Corolla Cross"? Not only the Cross has better gas mileage, it has rear air vent, rear USB plugs, and rear seat armrest. None of that was mentioned!
@@ThirdBrainLives I’ve sat inside this too and it also feels cheap, even the way the doors sound when they close is very tinny. Here in Mexico it’s more expensive than a RAV4, a Tucson or Tiguan, all of them are bigger and better products compared to this
I appreciate the level of detail used when describing the architecture of the HR-V. Nobody else had mentioned that some of its underpinnings are based off the current (soon to be previous) ten CR-V. That’s good to know!
Great video guys!. I went to the dealer today for service on my 18 accord. I looked at this car and really liked the looks in person. The interior is nice too for what it is. . Only real downside was the almost $9000 over MSRP the dealer is charging for the one the have in stock.....
@@misternordberg3675 Uh, no, not that far. More like twenty years. There are still other economy cars well over ten seconds. Twenry years ago there weren't cheap turbo engines. A two-liter with over 150 hp would have been considered more than ample for any smallish car.
@@scottieray sure if this car came with 2.0 liter reving its tits out with a manual gearbox sure the slowness could be excused for back to basic fun but a cvt eco box is pretty much the same a shitty ev car it even sound like an ev car in fact worst then ev car why not just get an ev car.
When you mention the rear suspension and AWD being lifted off the "prior generation" CR-V, does that mean the still on-sale 5th gen (2017-2022), or the aging 4th gen (2011-2016)? The 2023 6th gen model is not yet on sale.
How about compared to the Subaru Crosstrek? May not be as upscale but known for great ride and soft-road capability, qualities important for this segment since they are not fun to drive. Also 2.5L engine is better with around same mpg.
My daughter is a 2022 Impreza owner. More or less a “transportation appliance” but it should prove reliable, good winter transportation. It has the best A/C, night and day from our GTI’s.
All the poor auto journalists comprehensively reviewing Honda's week-old unrefrigerated tuna sandwich to stay in good graces with PR for when Civic/Integra Type R is released.
I work in a large factory surrounded by people who put 4,000 miles a year on their cars and leave our county about twice a year. Our parking lot is full of HR-Vs, and they all love them. AWD for the Ohio winters, reliable any heck because it's a Honda. I think car people like us watching car reviews all live in a bubble and worry about that engine, but 90%+ of the people who buy these things are absolutely satisfied with the power.
A fair review by savagegeese. A lot of us in our 20s in the 1980s-1990s (now 60+) had used or new with car payments. The new HR-V reminds me of the 1991 Civic DX hatchback I purchased with a trade-in. When new my 1986 Ford Tempo Sport GL/5sp stick was great for partime job at Sears whicle in college. Even with employee discount that Tempo was a maintenance nightmare. Thought I'd share for others that bought Tempo/Topaz twin in 85-89. HR-V looks sharp. At 61 I'd be more willing to get it to replace my 9 yr old Camry LEered a 5-6spd manual. At least offer a manual trans as an option.
I like the idea of the extra suspension travel and tuning. I wonder how plush it is compared to the Crosstrek. I wish the engine was a bit more grunty but they last forever.
I think this is a greatly executed car by Honda. Well appointed interiors, good space and despite thinking the front end was horrendous, it actually works with the rest of the car. Looks upscale. Sure wish it had more power though.
More power and a torque converted automatic. Maybe most people don't notice the difference, but having done hard time in a Prius, CVT's really turn me off. At least with the Prius, I was getting insanely good mileage.
It's reassuring that midwesterners can handle twisty mountainside roads of the western US and Hawaii, though in your case not surprising after so much track driving. Usually in summer if gas was cheap, look out for Minnesota tourists.
@@stubbingtonmarigold3032 By what standard? In the same class, every other car is hideous. I mean if you are comparing it to a luxury car, sure it sub par, but this is a $27k car
@@Selector21 I never mentioned that it drove better, in fact I stated the opposite. If you enjoy the look of another vehicle that is fine. Its subjective 🤷♂️
@@Sam-rc7wd Yes, I agree. Everything is subjective. I’m just butt hurt (haha) that crossovers are everywhere while I love liftback and station wagon (“estate” in Europe) body styles.
It seems to me that the HR-V's front end design is better in different parts of the world. Odd that they would waste money to make it worse for North America. And I just love how we are now paying old CR-V prices for something with an 11 second 0-60 time.
HR-V for the USA is a different car from HR-V for the rest of the world. In terms of size, it sits between European HR-V and CR-V. Door handles at back doors are different. The Interior is more like Civic instead of Jazz.
@@manfromnantucket9544 No, it's not. When you're on a typical American highway you need to have the ability to accelerate fairly quickly or else you're causing a safety issue for everyone else, not just yourself. I'm not asking for a sports car, 9 seconds would be totally acceptable. Imagine if you had an HR-V full of passengers or cargo and lived in mountainous area, or an area with 75+ mph speed limits, or both!
I hear you. I do think it's tough to compare old and new, as the new fleet of vehicles for all manufacturers offer alot more. I do think it's one of those things where consumers want more and more and more, but want the price to stay the same.
During most of these test drives, never do I see the tester catch up to a slower car that you really want to pass. Just driving along an empty scenic road, I'm sure the car is great. Let's get it out into traffic etc, then tell us what you think. This is meant to be constructive criticism. I really do enjoy your videos!
Funny coincidence. I just saw a Hrv with a manual for sale at my local CarMax and wondered if the goose crew had done a review on one. It has 90k miles and my credit score has soared this year into the 500s! I'm considering scheduling a test drive
It has a R18 engine so with the manual it’s like a raised up 06-11 Honda Civic with a manual. The R18 is one of the most reliable engines ever. 223K and counting on my wife’s 06 Civic.
The idea of replacing a hatchback Civic with this because "it's more practical" is nauseating, but that does seem to be where the wind is blowing. Would not be shocked to completely lose non-SUVs within a decade.
Needs an HRV-Si Mugen to match Hyundai Kona N or Audi QS3. Latest generation of Hondas has that taut svelte look of J Mays era Ford or VW Audi, which will last longer than the transformer toy look of the prior gen civic.
Base HRV LX AWD is $25k. Base Bronco Sport (awd standard) $29k. Honda looks to have a vastly better interior, but the baby Bronco can get out of it's own way and has a traditional gearbox. I think I'd spend a few more dollars on the Ford. The HRV and Bronco Sport are surprisingly close in terms of dimensions so it's not a ridiculous comparison. And they both get pretty bad fuel economy!
I think the better question is - why buy either? The Bronco is just gonna be another Dodge Caliber, sells like hotcakes then they're all off the road in 8 years getting squashed in a trash compactor.
The HRV EX-L in this review will probably be at $30K MSRP. For that money, you can get a Subaru Forester Premium with a 2.5 liter engine, although you would lose the leather interior trim. My dealer loaned me the Forester while my Impreza was in for a recall, had excellent acceleration in normal commuting.
My wife is in her second HR-V, she has a year left on her lease. She was shocked by the low MPG and the price increase. She wants to consider other cars now, but I want to get her to at lease test drive it. I was in my dealership the other day, I got to see it in person and I like it. I do have one question, were you Rickrolling us?
I think the almost dangerously weak performance of the new HR-V should've been emphasized more, especially since the reviewers harped on how anemic the Corolla Cross was in its review, yet it has more horsepower/torque and weighs about the same as the HR-V. I've seen the 0-60 time of the HR-V in the 13 second range which is glacial, and markedly slower than the 10.5 sec average I've seen for the Corolla Cross, which is already slow enough! Other than that, this new HR-V is now too big to be called a subcompact SUV (it's the same size as the Mazda CX-5, not the CX-30 it's competing against) and I think its exterior is by far the least attractive in its category. Its interior is the only saving race, but it's not enough to counter all the other issues the car has. I'd much sooner get the Subaru CrossTrek, Mazda CX-30 or the Corolla Cross over this if I wanted a subcompact SUV. And if I wanted an SUV the size of the HR-V, I'd much sooner get the CX-5 or the RAV4.
I think you're right about dangerously weak performance. A lot of people will underestimate its ability to pull out into active traffic and probably get smashed.
Anyone who doesn’t think this is underpowered should test drive one. I test drove one, loved everything about it but trying to merge onto a freeway with the wife and two kids inside was a chore, even with a long downhill on-ramp getting up to 60mph was tough. Its not any better around town, you floor it from a stop, the motor makes a bunch if noise and you go nowhere. Eventually the cvt starts transferring some of the noise into forward movement but it’s a pathetic powertrain overall especially given the mpg ratings.
@@raknoknak It was perfect for shoving bikes in. So much more convenient than breaking it down and putting it in the trunk, don't have to go around with a bike rack on the outside if you didn't need it.
I just test drove the HR-V and man if they just gave it a peppier engine, this thing would be legit. It drove nice and quiet with usable space. I'm not mad at the CVT but a small turbo engine would push this thing into a real contender.
You forgot to state the lack of rear vents. Which is a key feature, well lack of. This vehicles seems like a great deal for having higher ride clearance, and comfort compared to sedan, it’s basically a utility which it should be but lack of rear vents is bad for hotter climate regions
@4:58 i thought Mark was talking from the back seat. I guess it’s true , sometimes when you brew things in the same pot long enough, they start to taste similar ;)
It's crazy to me that with the Fit gone in Norf America and this getting a price and size hike, the Civic is back to being the cheapest Honda available.
Essentially, the best thing they could do, at least for enthusiasts, is make a HR-V Si, with the manual and the more powerful turbo engine, it'd make this thing really cool I think.
thanks for the video. curious - if CVT is what we have to deal with going forward, which one is more reliable among all brands, is it Honda's? and would it last for 200K miles? how about Subaru's, is it ok CVT?
This quick drive illustrates how poor the power to weight ratio is for this vehicle. Imagine the struggle this vehicle will have with four adult passengers and their luggage on-board with a full tank of gas. The peak horsepower is at 6500 RPM and torque is 138 lb-ft. I could not find a payload specification on the company website but 4 adults (180 lb average) + 4 carry-on bags (25 lb average) is 820 lbs. Making it bigger without meaningful torque makes this a dog on anything but flat surfaces. Bring in the turbo ASAP.
@@Lazirus951 Nissan made the similar 'mistake' with the new Rogue by putting in a non turbo low horsepower four. In less than a year that engine was replaced with a modern 3-cylinder turbo unit with over 200 HP and 220 lb ft torque. It is much faster, responsive, and quieter.
Said to say that it get more expensive but for our EU market made in China. I spent months to review and test it before trading my Accord for this. But moving manufacturing to China just ruined the whole philosophy of owning Honda (this one at least)
Shit man! I wanted to see the underbody of this vehicle. Not shown in this video. I wanted to gauge the fragility to sturdiness ratio of the underbody. This is probably the only channel on RU-vid that shows the underbody of vehicles.
I stopped by the dealership and took a test drive. Despite the redesign, it doesn't stray too far from the prior years' formulation as to range of use. It's an in-city errand-mobile, and certainly worthy of consideration for those of us who worry about getting stuck by a needle in the back seat of an Uber. If you have a leg of a trip you regularly make that has a hill with the speed limit posted above 50 mph, you will need a car with greater output from the engine. The groans this car makes to get up a moderately fast hill is sad.
I think it’s it’s a let down. Not to say the last HRV was great, but this isn’t great either. I’m also confused on what Honda’s entry level model is. Isn’t that what the CRV is? The replacement for the Civic once you out grow it? I think it’s sad that Ford has a Maverick pick up truck and this is just another CUV that’ll get mixed up with a Ford Escape.
If having a low output engine wasn't bad enough, they decided to mate it with CVT! I understand fuel economy is good, it still doesn't outweigh a need for more performance. There are situations on freeway that may need a rapid acceleration. I have 2 vehicles: Honda Fit and Acura RL. I balance between the two as where one lacks, the other one has.
AWD seems unnecessary but I’m sure Honda added it because American buyers insist it has to be there. Civic suspension is excellent and Honda have been doing great work in reducing NVH. If you need a car with good driving manners, that works effortlessly, and can move some kids and their stuff, for under $30k you can’t do better.
It looks like it's scowling but with it's mouth open. Looks pretty good, inside looks really nice. I wonder what a rally or Type-R version of it would be like.