swttsx007

Hey all!

What do you all think of the new Honda CR-V? I have yet to drive one, but my mom is in the market for a new SUV. She actually mentioned that she liked the redesign. I have to agree with her on that one! Anyway, she has a test drive set up for tomorrow, and I plan on going with her and driving the vehicle.

She would like to get a Hybrid Touring model. The only one on the lot currently is an EX-L model, however, they stated that they are due to get a Hybrid mid December. So, if she likes the EX-L, she plans to put a deposit down on the Hybrid model.

Has anyone driven the new CR-V? If so, what are your thoughts?

Thanks!

Dereileak

This is the wrong forum to be posting this, mods should move this. This is the RDX forum section…

fiatlux

The RDX and CRV are very frequently cross shopped, so it’s not entirely irrelevant to this subforum.

swttsx007

Exactly what I was going after. I have an RDX Aspec, and my mom has been looking at that and the CR-V. Just curious if anyone has driven one, and what their thoughts are on it.

EXCALIBUR1

Finally, the Honda CRV has some sporty styling. I'd consider it.

fiatlux

I haven’t even seen the new one in person yet, but one thing I highly highly recommend is taking it out on the freeway to see if the road noise is acceptable. Say what you will about Acuras and the badge premium, but one thing that separates premium cars from their mainline brethren is NVH reduction and road noise isolation. Hondas in particular are pretty loud at speed, and while the RDX is also pretty loud for a premium car, it’s still considerably quieter and more isolated than Hondas.

EFR

Can't help on the driving side, but Motor Trend just called it a 'finalist' in its SUV of the year awards. In the cons were the infotainment system which came off as "about a decade old" and "droning powertrain"....but otherwise typical, good CRV.

HotRodW

It's a Honda that's larger and looks better, so I have no doubt it will sell great. I'd like to see a premium trim, with more high end features, the 2.0T/10-speed powertrain, and some version of SH-AWD. Yes, that overlaps with the RDX, but I contend all Hondas should overlap with base model Acuras. Besides, not everyone wants to drive a premium nameplate. There is a very distinct demographic that likes to fly under the radar, but they still want the features and they're willing to pay for them. This is why I think Honda made a big mistake by killing the 2.0T option in the Accord.

leomio2.0

Love the redesigned CR-V. If it had the 2.0T, I'd dump the RDX for one in a heartbeat. The CR-V is probably the most important vehicle in Honda's line-up. They know they can't mess up there. The reviews prove that Honda has once again got it right with the new CR-V.

That being said, don't forget about Mazda. At least urge her to test drive a CX5 or CX50 to see how she likes it compared to the CR-V.

Clickit02

watch this...

swttsx007

So, my mom ended up getting a 2023 Honda CR-V Sport Hybrid Touring. She got really lucky, and they had one in transit that was arriving the next day. I've got to say, the CR-V is a really nice vehicle. I am much more impressed with it than I thought I would be. I've actually been contemplating the idea of dumping my RDX Aspec for one. Although not as powerful as the RDX, and no SH-AWD, I still think it is adequately powered. Also, for my driving style, I'm sure I wouldn't notice the difference between having AWD and SH-AWD.

I may just have to run some lease numbers and see how it plays out....

leomio2.0

Same. For the way I drive the RDX, I wouldn't miss SH-AWD in the least and would welcome the nicer ride quality of the CR-V.

But, the RDX blows the doors off the CR-V in a straight line, which is why I wouldn't give it up. Also, the CR-V's interior is way more usable and well thought out. I've grown to really not like the center console of the RDX.

supafamous

I'd be curious if the instant torque of the CR-V Hybrid actually mitigates how fast it feels compared to the RDX. Car and Driver has the CR-V's street start (5-60mph) time at 8.0 and the RDX at 7.0 which is the difference you'd expect considering the power outputs but electric torque can do wonders at city speeds (though it fades at higher speeds). Almost all my driving is in the city and I wonder if I'd really notice the difference (I found the last CR-V to be a dog though).

ELIN

Did she end up paying at, below, or above MSRP?

EFR

Agree....too bad the 2.0 is not in it as at least an option. Drove the last one, found the 1.5 OK, but a little weak. Also, the CRV has CVT transmission, which I have never owned, but is divisive I guess. Looks nice though. Interested in the new Pilot, and it still has a V6.

hand-filer

Well that would pretty much make the RDX irrelevant.

HotRodW

Not remotely. There's plenty of room for both. The badge, the warranty, nicer materials, unique styling, quieter interior, dealership experience ... there are still plenty of reasons one might choose the RDX, just like there are plenty of reasons buyers select an MDX over a Pilot with the same powertrain.

sonyfever

Congrats on your mom's new ride. Would you mind sharing what impressed you the most compared to your RDX? Might be helpful for others in a similar boat.

Baldeagle

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...y-the-numbers/

I've had many Honda's in my past. Never disappointed. I'm sure your Mom will loves hers too. BUT......according to this article, the hybrid CRV costs $40,000. That’s what I paid for my FWD RDX Tech. And my FWD Tech gets 30 mpg at 75 mph too.

ELIN

A lot has changed in the world since you bought your RDX. Supply chain issues and rampant inflation have brought us where we are now.

I never thought a current X3 would cost me nearly $55k but that's where we are now!

Ludepower

Are we really comparing the CRV vs RDX? Does the rav4 get compared to the Lexus NX?

You buy the CRV for the better value. It's an economy CUV with a basic engine for the masses.

The RDX does everything better besides the terrible gas mileage.

fiatlux

I generally agree but the CRV infotainment system is better too.

ross7777

100% agreed. The CRV/Rav4 is for those who want basic transportation. The re-design looks better but there will soon be a billion of these on the road and it will fade into oblivion.

I find it hard to believe very many people are cross shopping the CRV with the RDX. Or the Rav4 with the NX.

The RDX isn't perfect but it looks and drives better IMO.

ELIN

Believe what you want. I cross shopped a Venza against the NX 2 years ago. The NX has far more in common with the Venza than it does the RAV4. The 2 cars were so similar, many former Lexus owners picked up the Venza for thousands less (making it too popular for me unfortunately).

ross7777

There are always exceptions and the Venza was one of them. The CRV however is not. IMO.

fiatlux

Most buyers don’t care about the driving experience, so the benefits of the RDX are lost on them. For them, a Touring CRV makes way more sense than an RDX, and that’s why these cars get cross shopped.

tecwerks

The only people I see driving a CRV are old people as well as some younger that mostly drive s l o w e r…..regardless of the speed limit.

ross7777

Exactly my point. I’m willing to bet they don’t even consider the RDX in the first place. Highly anecdotal but everyone I know who drives a CRV doesn’t care much about cars and just wants a simple, boring, reliable vehicle with good MPG.

Baldeagle

In my observation, 10%-15% of CR-V, RAV4, CX-5 etc. owners could afford far more expensive luxury cars but don’t care about being pampered, high performance or image. Autos are just transportation and they purchase the least expensive car that satisfies that need. But the other 85% of people do care about the driving experience and would love to own a better car. The problem is they can’t afford it, or at least comfortably afford it. A base FWD RDX lists for about $41,300 today. A CR-V Sport Touring (Non-hybrid) lists for about $38,600. Perhaps someone in the market for the most expensive non-hybrid CR-V may consider the least expensive RDX. But given that most CR-Vs are in the $33G range and most AWD RDXs are in the $47G range, that price gap is too great for them to be cross shopped.

fiatlux

If 85% of prospective crossover owners really cared about the driving experience, we’d see far fewer crossovers on the road.

Baldeagle

That’s actually funny! But we know that even within the hefty, high-center-of-gravity world of SUVs, some drive better than others.

JustMe...

When we bought my wife's 2019 CX-5 Signature back at the end of 2018, we cross shopped Merc, BMW, Audi, Lexus and Acura as well as the 5th gen CR-V. If it was my choice, she would be in an SQ5. but after an extended test-drive she decided she didn't want the badge stigma and would be too afraid to drive it. The 5th gen CR-V was dealing with complaints of oil dilution and it really wasn't that appealing to drive. The RDX was what I thought we would be getting, until we heard about and were actually able to drive the new turbo CX-5 and see its interior in person. So, to your point about us 10-15%'ers, it was more about value for our dollar vs not wanting to be "pampered". At the time, the RDX Advance came out to around $7k more than the CX-5. The CX-5's interior was on the same level as the RDX's, as well as its performance. The Acura dealer experience wasn't really anything to write home about, either. Their amenities seemed on par with those of Honda and Toyota.

I have not yet seen the 6th gen CR-V in person, but everything I've read about it sounds like a huge step up from the 5th gen. Anyone who's thinking about getting a Base, or Tech pkg RDX would be doing themselves a disservice by not comparing it against a Touring trimmed CR-V. Now, if Honda would just bring the pano roof to the US...

ELIN

That's a good example and ultimately one of the reasons why I left Acura. There just wasn't enough separation b/w Honda and Acura to justify the additional money Acura was asking for. As others have pointed out, Honda was superior to the Acura offering at the time in certain respects (ie. wireless CP/AA, etc.). An upmarket brand should never be upstaged by its cheaper alternative.

ross7777

All fair points but a CRV is usually not considered alongside an Audi, BMW or Lexus. Even Mazda offers a much more engaging drive.

If you only care about interior features and not the engine/awd/performance then yes, you belong in a CRV.

We all have different needs but at the end of the day we are talking about a CRV.

190hp. I don’t care if it has a 15” touchscreen and digital dash. It’s a dog and no fun to drive. Looks decent though.

Baldeagle

To me, the richness, comfort and refinement of an Acura’s interior far exceeds any premium Honda. I also think the suspensions are tuned better. However, as each generation of Honda, Mazda, Toyota, VW, Hyundai, etc. evolves, the gap between them and a luxury car gets smaller, particularly with respect to tech, safety features, and refinement. Its getting harder for luxury cars to justify their price on substance alone. To that end, will Acura forcefully maintain a gap with Honda? Is it true Honda will no longer offer the 2.0T in their Accord? Were Accord sales cannibalizing TLX sales? Did that gap get too close?

fiatlux

The issue I've noticed is that from a product timeline perspective, Acura seems to be offset by a couple years from Honda, which makes it perpetually trailing when it comes to featuresets. For instance, the 9G Accord came out in 2012, whereas the 1G TLX came out 2 years later in 2014. Then, when the 10G Accord came out in 2017, it boasted features beyond what the 1G TLX had, and it wasn't until 2020 when the 2G TLX came out and was able to reach parity again.

The problem is that HoMoCo treats Acura like a second-class citizen. It's always played second fiddle to Honda, and so rather than having Acura get the latest and greatest and allow that to trickle down to Honda, Hondas get the good stuff first before it makes its way up to Acura. It feels like SH-AWD is the only exception to that rule.

fiatlux

The Accord losing the 2.0T probably has more to do with CAFE than anything else. They weren't selling them in a huge numbers (something like 10-15% I think), whereas they're targeting 50% of the sales to be the new hybrid powertrain.

Honda absolutely needs to get more of these hybrids onto the road to show the buying public that they are relevant in the new electrified marketplace. As it currently stands, nobody thinks about Honda when it comes to electrification. Their hybrids have sold poorly (deservedly so) and they're completely absent from the EV game in North America aside from a couple low-range compliance cars. Toyota is in the same boat in the latter case, but their success with hybrids lends to them a sense of credibility that they know how to make EVs (whether that perception is true or not is immaterial). Honda unfortunately doesn't have that same luxury (yet).

ELIN

Unfortunately, the niche appeal of SH-AWD is not enough for a company to survive. Honda's treatment of the "red-headed stepchild" will be a self-fulfilling prophecy!

JustMe...

What about the current RDX platform? It was the whole reason I never had any interest in the RDX until 2019. It was always just a CR-V with a bigger engine and a few more features.

Honda has never sold a CR-V in the US with a panoramic sunroof, but did in Canada, and just recently began selling them with front and rear parking sensors. It seems like they hold out a few features to try and keep Acura on a different level.

leomio2.0

This probably stems from the fact that Honda, as the parent company, is Japanese based and a worldwide brand, whereas Acura is only here in North America. That's unlike how Toyota treats Lexus, which is also sold alongside Toyota worldwide, tho sales don't particularly do well outside of North America.

It's also why the Civic Type-R's engine isn't allowed in anything Acura. Honda probably does look down on Acura as the American brand based on vanity. Something frowned upon in Japanese culture.