[Dermochelys]

I picked this up on another forum and thought it would be interesting to share here....

From "Jeff":
"Also, I've driven it (the HR-V) but I can't tell you anything about the drive for a long while. The embargo is April 30th!
VTEC turbos can't get here soon enough."

Then a couple of post later when people started to comment on the turbo comment....

From "Jeff":
"I'm suggesting that it would be a great thing for the HR-V. Regardless, Honda's going to sell a bunch of HR-Vs even with the narcolepsy-inducing powertrain"

It would appear to me that "Jeff" drove the HR-V at Miami and has had a slip of the tongue considering his driving impression (an embargoed topic) of the engine performance. I think we all know that the 1.8L is not a "performance" engine, so this shouldn't be a surprise, and many have already called for the introduction of a turbo already, but the specific language used in these comments is interesting.

 

[Bicepeak]

I picked this up on another forum and thought it would be interesting to share here....

From "Jeff":
"Also, I've driven it (the HR-V) but I can't tell you anything about the drive for a long while. The embargo is April 30th!
VTEC turbos can't get here soon enough."

Then a couple of post later when people started to comment on the turbo comment....

From "Jeff":
"I'm suggesting that it would be a great thing for the HR-V. Regardless, Honda's going to sell a bunch of HR-Vs even with the narcolepsy-inducing powertrain"

It would appear to me that "Jeff" drove the HR-V at Miami and has had a slip of the tongue considering his driving impression (an embargoed topic) of the engine performance. I think we all know that the 1.8L is not a "performance" engine, so this shouldn't be a surprise, and many have already called for the introduction of a turbo already, but the specific language used in these comments is interesting.

Yes, that is a bit of a slip. I do remember, back in LA, a reviewer predicting performance would be "sluggish" because of engine size for a heavier body than the fit. So not exactly a surprise either.

 

[TrueNorth]

"Narcolepsy-inducing?"

That is not a very nice descriptor for the engine. Is there only going to be one engine choice, or will there be the chance to opt for a more powerful power train?

 

[pstineme]

Now you know why there is an embargo. 30 days of subjective information can ruin a release. Colorful adjectives like narcolepsy-inducing don't really tell you much but sound really bad.

 

[Bicepeak]

Now you know why there is an embargo. 30 days of subjective information can ruin a release. Colorful adjectives like narcolepsy-inducing don't really tell you much but sound really bad.

Yes,but another way to look at it is waiting this long increases the possibility that incomplete bad information may be bandied about before complete reviews can be read.

 

[Dermochelys]

"Narcolepsy-inducing?"

That is not a very nice descriptor for the engine. Is there only going to be one engine choice, or will there be the chance to opt for a more powerful power train?

As of right now the North American market will only see the 1.8L VTEC engine. Other markets have other engine choices, if not now, then in the future (like the Japanese hybrids or European diesels

 

[Dermochelys]

I do think this goes towards a larger issue the HR-V will face.

I think how you feel about the engine performance will be dictate by how you view this car, and because this is a "jack of all trades", it's going to get cross shopped against many very different cars.

For instance, if you're looking at the HR-V as a "hot hatch", you might compare it to a Ford Fiesta or Focus, VW Golf, Mazda 3, or similar cars. Through that filter the engine will probably seem sluggish.

However, if you see it as an SUV competitor because of the cargo size the comparisons against the Forester, RAV-4, Tuscon, etc. it might come off as a more nimble fun to drive small car with lots of cargo space for the size.

Finally, there's the category it should be in, the sub-compact CUV. However, the segment it self is cut into at least two different groups. There's the "sport" group (think Nissan Juke, Mazda CX-3, etc.) the "utility" group (Chevy Trax, Buick Encore), the off-road group (Jeep Renegade, Subaru XV Crosstrek), and the "cool / retro" group (Kia Soul, Fiat 500L, Scion XB, Mini).

Depending on what "filter" you see this car through I think will determine greatly how it will compare to it's perceived competition.

 

[Bicepeak]

I do think this goes towards a larger issue the HR-V will face.

I think how you feel about the engine performance will be dictate by how you view this car, and because this is a "jack of all trades", it's going to get cross shopped against many very different cars.

For instance, if you're looking at the HR-V as a "hot hatch", you might compare it to a Ford Fiesta or Focus, VW Golf, Mazda 3, or similar cars. Through that filter the engine will probably seem sluggish.

However, if you see it as an SUV competitor because of the cargo size the comparisons against the Forester, RAV-4, Tuscon, etc. it might come off as a more nimble fun to drive small car with lots of cargo space for the size.

Finally, there's the category it should be in, the sub-compact CUV. However, the segment it self is cut into at least two different groups. There's the "sport" group (think Nissan Juke, Mazda CX-3, etc.) the "utility" group (Chevy Trax, Buick Encore), the off-road group (Jeep Renegade, Subaru XV Crosstrek), and the "cool / retro" group (Kia Soul, Fiat 500L, Scion XB, Mini).

Depending on what "filter" you see this car through I think will determine greatly how it will compare to it's perceived competition.

Very well put...and how I would look at the HR-V regarding utility. Never thought of it as hot rod.

 

[Ex-cape]

Very well put...and how I would look at the HR-V regarding utility. Never thought of it as hot rod.

Agreed, very eloquent from someone keen to the current SUV/CUV market.

 

[Rrrapture]

I picked this up on another forum and thought it would be interesting to share here....

From "Jeff":
"Also, I've driven it (the HR-V) but I can't tell you anything about the drive for a long while. The embargo is April 30th!
VTEC turbos can't get here soon enough."

Then a couple of post later when people started to comment on the turbo comment....

From "Jeff":
"I'm suggesting that it would be a great thing for the HR-V. Regardless, Honda's going to sell a bunch of HR-Vs even with the narcolepsy-inducing powertrain"

Darn, I was really hoping the HR-V with manual transmission would be more powerful than the Fit. BTW, I actually have narcolepsy and I think his choice of words is colorful but dubious.

 

[Hondude]

Whoops! Looks like someone jumped the gun a bit after the Miami sneak-peak.

I've pictured the HRV as a larger Fit with a 2015 U.S. Civic engine.

Not expecting 0-50MPH in 5 seconds, of course. At the same time am I making no excuses for Tokyo's established M.O. of dialing down performance on US models.

 

[idearat]

Darn, I was really hoping the HR-V with manual transmission would be more powerful than the Fit. BTW, I actually have narcolepsy and I think his choice of words is colorful but dubious.

Reviewers are generally driving enthusiasts who would always like more power than the majority of drivers would ever use or most traffic allow. In another thread (about dogs) the same guy says:

the R18 will be fine for the majority of people who are considering an HR-V. Just a small subset of possible buyers will want something more. I think the 1.5T would be pretty alright - a 2.0T would be the bomb.

 

[Juan Carlos Veras]

i wish honda to put a 2.0 turbo uffff

 

[HRV4ME]

Too funny, the HRV is a Fit based CUV so I would expect performance to be comparable to the Fit for which its intended.

I picked this up on another forum and thought it would be interesting to share here....

From "Jeff":
"Also, I've driven it (the HR-V) but I can't tell you anything about the drive for a long while. The embargo is April 30th!
VTEC turbos can't get here soon enough."

Then a couple of post later when people started to comment on the turbo comment....

From "Jeff":
"I'm suggesting that it would be a great thing for the HR-V. Regardless, Honda's going to sell a bunch of HR-Vs even with the narcolepsy-inducing powertrain"

It would appear to me that "Jeff" drove the HR-V at Miami and has had a slip of the tongue considering his driving impression (an embargoed topic) of the engine performance. I think we all know that the 1.8L is not a "performance" engine, so this shouldn't be a surprise, and many have already called for the introduction of a turbo already, but the specific language used in these comments is interesting.

 

[idearat]

Too funny, the HRV is a Fit based CUV so I would expect performance to be comparable to the Fit for which its intended.

Not sure why you'd think that. It's based on the fit platform, yes, but that doesn't mean they're trying to duplicate the Fit. It's got a longer wheelbase, different size and shape and weight distribution, it's heavier, has a bigger engine... it's a different beast. Magic seats notwithstanding.

 

[HRV4ME]

I believe that because it's intended to be Honda's entry level geared towards the highest possible fuel economy.

Yes there are those asking where are the power seats and all..Sorry but your considering the wrong vehicle.

Essentially this replaces the Element and again, if you associate the word performance, then you might need to reconsider.

Too funny, the HRV is a Fit based CUV so I would expect performance to be comparable to the Fit for which its intended.

Not sure why you'd think that. It's based on the fit platform, yes, but that doesn't mean they're trying to duplicate the Fit. It's got a longer wheelbase, different size and shape and weight distribution, it's heavier, has a bigger engine... it's a different beast. Magic seats notwithstanding.

 

[idearat]

I believe that because it's intended to be Honda's entry level geared towards the highest possible fuel economy.

Yes there are those asking where are the power seats and all..Sorry but your considering the wrong vehicle.

Essentially this replaces the Element and again, if you associate the word performance, then you might need to reconsider.

Gotcha. I agree. Maybe the CDX will be the 'performance' version.

I suspect the HR-V as is will suit me just fine.

 

[HRV4ME]

Take the Accord, or any Honda really, they are most things go very well. Driver's cars? No
Flat out performance? No

Then again that I not the reason most people buy a Honda to begin with.

I believe that because it's intended to be Honda's entry level geared towards the highest possible fuel economy.

Yes there are those asking where are the power seats and all..Sorry but your considering the wrong vehicle.

Essentially this replaces the Element and again, if you associate the word performance, then you might need to reconsider.

Gotcha. I agree. Maybe the CDX will be the 'performance' version.

I suspect the HR-V as is will suit me just fine.

 

[ddemetra]

I"m a little disappointed in the HR-V engine compared to the new Mazda CX3

CX3 HR-V
2.0 1.8 Engine Size
6.3 6.6 Fuel consumption - combined (l/100km)
109 105 Maximum power (kW @ rpm)
192 172 Maximum torque (Nm @ rpm)

Bigger, less fuel, more HP, more torque

 

[vtec]

I think that mazda engine is part of Mazda's skyactiv engine family which is known for achieving just that, great fuel economy and power.