Those shopping for a small, fuel-efficient crossover can now add the 2016 Honda HR-V to the list, thanks to its EPA-certified 31 mpg combined rating.
Autoblog reports the HR-V also delivers 28 mpg in the city and 35 mpg on the highway, but only if one opts for the FWD model with CVT. Adding power to the back brings the rating down to 27 city/32 highway/29 combined, while swapping the CVT for a six-speed manual in the FWD variant pushes the savings down to 25 city/34 highway/28 combined.
The FWD HR-V’s figures best those from competitors like the Nissan Juke, Kia Soul and Chevrolet Trax at the pump, while Mazda’s CX-5 can keep up on the highway figure; the CX-3, which awaits EPA-certification, may do better than the HR-V, however. Its platform-mate, the Fit, outperforms the crossover at 33 city/41 highway/36 combined.
The 2016 HR-V is due in U.S. showrooms this spring.
By this time next year, the HR-V will be outselling the Fit. Possibly even the Fit and Civic combined.
Yep, a huge hit for Honda
I don’t mind how it looks at all (except for purple paint, yech), but it looks dated to my eyes already. It’s the 2010 Civic Allroad.
Agreed… Behold the Fivic. Apex species of the small car.
“Not only does the HR-V best competitors like the Nissan Juke, Kia Soul and Chevrolet Trax at the pump, the crossover also bests the Fit”
Not quite, the EPA lists the Fit @ 29 City / 37 Hwy
And the CVT makes 33/41 (LX) or 32/38 (EX & EX-L).
I guess the only way the HR-V beats the Fit (in EPA ratings) is if you look back to the old (2013) model. And even there, the top-rated HR-V configuration matches the top-rated Fit at 28/35.
Honda will regret cannibalizing CRV sales.
Not if it’s with another Honda product.
Worked for GM. But yes, I see this a a winner for Honda but only if it is not too close to the CR-V price wise. If that happens I could see the midsiz truck issue rearing its head. Of course this is a pretty hot segment so the market has pretty much debunked that worry.
I disagree, the HR-V is the perfect starter kit that would easily lead into the CR-V step-up. Well played, Honda
Or is the HR-V a less profitable downgrade from the CR-V? Maybe they were missing out on sales by those who felt the CR-V was too big, but I haven’t met that customer yet.
“I disagree, the HR-V is the perfect starter kit that would easily lead into the CR-V step-up. Well played, Honda”
spoken like a car salesman.
It will go like this, throughout one’s life. see if you spot the issue.
HR-V
CR-V
Pilot
Avalon
RI-P
One could also feasibly replace the Avalon with Venza or RX350 to keep with the crossover theme. Your point stands, regardless.
“Honda will regret cannibalizing CRV sales”
For footprint, this *is* the classic CR-V. Was poking around the current CR-V yesterday while my wife’s Fit was getting warranty maintenance. Jeepers, how they’ve perceptually if not actually grown. Clunky.
I don’t think the new Fit is flying out of showrooms, either. There were 5 new ones receiving no attention at our dealership in the two hours we killed there. Walk-ins were mostly looking at Accords and Oddys.
I really think the HR-V is more a Fit replacement than a competitor for CR-V sales.
“I really think the HR-V is more a Fit replacement than a competitor for CR-V sales.”
This. Likely a bit more profitable, too.
“Jeepers, how they’ve perceptually if not actually grown. Clunky.”
It’s all perception. In reality they’re within ~3 inches of one another in basically all specs. It’s only even grown in weight 262lbs (8%).
I know, right? I was absolutely certain that the original CR-V was almost HR-V sized, but when I looked it up, the stats proved otherwise. It’s the Toyota RAV4 that’s grown the most. If Toyota made a subcompact CUV it would be almost the same size as the original RAV4.
Even driving and owning a CR-V you will think it has grown a lot since the first gen ( I own an ’07 3rd gen, and recently test drove a ’98), but it’s just improved packaging and less glass area, and some added width (the wheelarches no longer stick out from the body). The trunk got stretched a bit when the spare went under the floor, so technically the body is longer than on a first gen. But total outside length is about the same.
The mythical Renegade is supposed to top 30 mpg highway also, but when can I buy one?
According to latest rumors, Friday
Looking at the AWD crossover competition, the HR-V (27/32, 29 combined) pretty much matches the XV Crosstrek (26/34, 29 combined). The Juke and the larger CR-V, Outback, Rogue, and 2.0L CX-5 all make 28 combined.
I was actually surprised the HR-V was not rated higher. We just purchased a 2014 Crosstrek as my wife’s car, and after seeing the HR-V mpg rating for the AWD version, I’m pretty happy we went ahead with the Crosstrek.
Savings attributed to the Crosstek’s combined MPG will be negated by the cost of barrels of oil consumed.
Trade it in! HR-V for the win.
Huh?
“the crossover also bests the Fit, which provides the HR-V with its platform”
You might want to recheck that math. Were you comparing it to the previous generation Fit?
Everyone credits the Juke with “starting” this segment in the US, and being relatively successful, but everyone negletcs the part where the Juke has a beast of a powertrain, it wasn’t built to sip gas, it was built to go fast. It’s a hot hatch, and the “competition” are mostly snooze-hatches instead.
Really? The only thing I’ve heard anyone credit the Juke for is making a supreb effort at unseating the Aztec as the most awkward looking vehicle in recent memory.
Clearly you haven’t driven one. The thing really moves, and handles like a frigging Mazda3.
So it handles like an economy car? Okay
No, it handles like a Mazda3.
“No, it handles like a Mazda3.”
Which is…an economy car. LOL.
Except a Mazda3 doesn’t handle like most other economy cars now does it? :) Saying something handles like an economy car means nothing, a Corolla is an economy car. So is a Smart FourTwo. So is a Prius. But so also is a Focus, and also some of the better Civics out there. And Imprezas, they actually handle pretty well too.
And two cars that handles really really well are a Mazda3 and a Nissan Juke.
Following that logic your S2000 is simply a Honda Miata. They are both little 2 seat convertible sports cars.
“Following that logic your S2000 is simply a Honda Miata. They are both little 2 seat convertible sports cars.”
From a handling perspective I’d agree. The only real substantive difference between the two is about 70hp.
“A good handling car can make quick transitions in direction without a lot of body lean, without losing traction, without getting squirrely at all.”
Thats the vaguest handling-related answer I’ve ever read.
Virtually no modern cars will loose traction nor get squirrely under normal driving conditions nor evasive maneuvers.
In other words, you’ve just said that every modern car handles well.
“Virtually no modern cars will loose traction nor get squirrely under normal driving conditions nor evasive maneuvers.”
1. I never said anything about normal driving conditions, I said quick transitions.
and 2. Bull, take a look at the recently published on this site Chevy Spark review. Among many others. Plenty of cars out there can’t be pushed hard.
So what makes an economy car handle “good” vs a “bad” one?
I don’t mean statistically or technical suspension geometry stuff, I mean just based off of driving them.
If you need to ask that, then you’ll need to turn in your B&B badge. :)
It’s all about steering, suspension, chassis tuning, etc. A good handling car can make quick transitions in direction without a lot of body lean, without losing traction, without getting squirrely at all.
Evasive maneuvers = Quick transitions
If you read the comments you’d see that I did read the Spark review, “virtually” implies that not all cars handle “good”, the Spark being an example.
The AWD model is interesting. This means the front wheel drive version has, what, a torsion bar in the rear where as the AWD has fully independent suspension?
Also, without that extra upper control arm in the front, it aint no first gen CRV. I’ve got one in ‘standard’. It’s damn good.
Would love to convert it to DOHC VTEC. Anyone got a B16/B18 head ‘sitting around’?
I prefer manual transmissions. The HR-V will offer one, the Mazda CX-3 will not. The CX-5 does, but it’s much bigger.
What bothers me most about the manual CX-5 is not that it’s only available with FWD, but that the “colors” consist of black, white, gray and maybe dark red.
184-hp NA 2.5L 4-cylinder in a 3500lb car as it’s best engine bothers me more
Any vehicle available with a stick is worth checking out.
I can’t remember if I brilliantly thought of this myself or I read it somewhere, but the CUV as the default family car is a return to the 50’s when cars were tall and Mom and Dad – and especially Grandma – could step into a car instead of bending over and crawling in. After six decades it’s a backlash to longer, lower, wider.
“Any vehicle available with a stick is worth checking out.”
You sure about that? I can think of a few cars a stickshift can’t or doesn’t help.