Topic: SPIED: Facelifted Honda CR-V Caught Testing New Sheetmetal

[Autos_Editor]

Honda looks to be refining their compact utility in latest round of spy shots

Read More...

[Noto]

Let's hope the beauty here is more than skin(metal)- deep.  It'd be nice if they could tweak the powertrain, though a CVT is undoubtedly in the mix.  Maybe a slight bump in horsepower, too, but I feel that a bump in torque, even at the expense of a few top-end hp would be useful (especially if there's a move to the CVT).

And yes, the interior needs the remake more than anything.

[dragonfly]

 Hey..it's a Honda(AKA no-torque)  Fer crissakes. my eyes!!! The only part of this blah design  that  could be considered horrid is that fat ass...Do something about it!!   hehe  No guts, no looks..Poifeck..a Honda

[blork]

From the article "Expect the next CR-V to make land in Canada sometime in 2015 as a 2016 model."

This is incorrect. There is only mild taping on the vehicle, indicating a finished product, and the mid model change is scheduled for the 2015 model year.
Expect this revised CR-V at dealers this fall. If you're looking at a current 2014, might be worth waiting for a few months.

[Noto]

Hey..it's a Honda(AKA no-torque)

At 185hp/163lb-ft, it's barely lower than its competition (like the Forester 2.5i at 174lb-ft), but comes with a healthier 15hp more.  In this class, all the engines are pretty much the same (in terms of driver's notice, not specifications).

Honda's engines have proven to be fairly fuel efficient in the real world and not much slower than the competition.

Only Mazda's 2.5i is better, all-in-all, with its healthy square numbers, but its transmission sucks more d!ck than both Bert and Ernie combined.

[blork]

Hey..it's a Honda(AKA no-torque)

At 185hp/163lb-ft, it's barely lower than its competition (like the Forester 2.5i at 174lb-ft), but comes with a healthier 15hp more.  In this class, all the engines are pretty much the same (in terms of driver's notice, not specifications).

The problem with comparing peak HP, is that you'll find some are in an RPM band that is virtually inaccessible. The CR-V's current 185hp is virtually at the RPM limiter. And guess what? The automatic shifts well before that limiter arrives. So I'd say a good 10-15 hp listed is inaccessible. And likely a good 20-30 more HP is at an RPM range that is rarely accessed in normal driving. The forester has a much broader HP and torque spread, which is better for everyday driving.

If the new CR-V has the accord direct injected earth dreams engine, you'll likely see a substantial torque increase, and a shift of the power down from redline in the RPM band. That will make it drive substantially better.

[Noto]

The problem with comparing peak HP...

That was my argument.  I was saying that the engines in this class are all competitive and hp or torque #s are not particularly important.

[Trainman]

Never a big fan of this style of the CR-V as I like to have big windows for visibility, especially at the back, and this does not look like it will change that.  MIL was very happy with hers though.

The problem with comparing peak HP...

That was my argument.  I was saying that the engines in this class are all competitive and hp or torque #s are not particularly important.

What is important is gearing and how accessible the power is.  For example, my Forester and the wife's RAV have very similar specs (both 2.5 l 4 cylinder engines, weight, power, torque, 4 speed AT's) but what a difference in how that translates to performance.  Even my wife complains about the poor power distribution of the RAV, totally gutless from 30 kph to 80 while the Forester just flies in comparison.  We have "The Hump" (officially the Alberni Summit) to go over to get out of town (8% grade, plus sharp 90 degree corners on each side) and there is a huge difference in how these two vehicle can manage this.  The issue seems to be a very long second gear in the RAV that you get into at very low speeds and can't get out of till that 80 kph mark.  This is manually shifting the beast, much worse when left in D.  Makes for challenging passing as well.


 

[Noto]

What is important is gearing and how accessible the power is.

Of course, but for most that don't live in the mountains (or by them), it'll be a non-issue.  Even for you, it amounts to a preference rather than a necessity.

The better window visibility is far more important

[blotter]

is it just me, it doesn't really look changed much.
?

[BernardP]

is it just me, it doesn't really look changed much.
?

It's not you. Those pictures show a mild facelift, not an all-new model

[Snowman]

is it just me, it doesn't really look changed much.
?

Agreed, nothing to see here.

[bridgecity]

Fack, I own one and can't tell its changed  .  Fogs lights?  Round to oval shaped?  Bulbous headlights?  Seems to be about it, although it is listed as a facelift.

[Bubba]

That D-pillar continues to look like crap. 

[johngenx]

That D-pillar continues to look like crap.

I find the overall design inoffensive save for the very awkward d-pillar.  Honda has a few instances of odd shapes right now with the bit on the side of the van and this pillar.

[jpd]

Indeed not much differences on the exterior but hopefully, honda would bring a better choice of colors for the CRV!

[Prius]

Well it gains projector headlights for the midlife update as well as Honda's proximity entry/smart start system (Does Honda have a name for that? you know, KEYLESS GO, Smart Key System SmartAccess, FAST etc etc).


This spy shot looks a bit suspicious. While I've heard no rumours of it, do anyone of you think it might be a CR-V hybrid? I'm basing this on two items - the extra badge below the "AWD" one on the bottom right of the tailgate and the aerodynamic-looking wheels similar to the current Accord Hybrid.

[Frontier1]

I find nothing wrong with the CRV, one of the of the better looking ones IMO.