My best guess is that the heavier weight and larger engine in the CR-V amount to about the same power to weight ratio as the smaller engined but like ghter HR-V.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Doesn't the 2015 CRV have the new earth dreams engine which gets it better mileage than past years?
It's early here and I thought you were referring to the engine the HR-V got. Deleted my answer.Doesn't the 2015 CRV have the new earth dreams engine which gets it better mileage than past years?
The new CR-V is top of it's class, and gets great mileage.
From the actual results compared to the stated, it seems the MPG is a bit of a stretch target.
My guess would be at 600 lbs lighter, and smaller engine, the HR-V mileage would be easier to meet or surpass the rated mileage.
From the actual results compared to the stated, it seems the MPG is a bit of a stretch target.
My guess would be at 600 lbs lighter, and smaller engine, the HR-V mileage would be easier to meet or surpass the rated mileage.
The 2015 CRV is rated at 27/29/34. The 2016 HRV is rated at 28/31/35.
The HRV has slightly better gas mileage.
The HRV has slightly better gas mileage.
Sadly, it honestly didn't even occur to me that these two vehicles would be so close in gas mileage. I really wanted an HR-V since discovering it in Consumer Reports magazine last fall, but as more details come out I am more and more disappointed in this car. I can honestly say, I will impatiently wait for it before I purchase, but two month ago I would have said no doubt I'll be driving an HR-V but now I don't even think it's as good as 50/50. Not that Honda cares. They'll likely have my money either way.The 2015 CRV is rated at 27/29/34. The 2016 HRV is rated at 28/31/35.
The HRV has slightly better gas mileage.
Sadly, it honestly didn't even occur to me that these two vehicles would be so close in gas mileage. I really wanted an HR-V since discovering it in Consumer Reports magazine last fall, but as more details come out I am more and more disappointed in this car. I can honestly say, I will impatiently wait for it before I purchase, but two month ago I would have said no doubt I'll be driving an HR-V but now I don't even think it's as good as 50/50. Not that Honda cares. They'll likely have my money either way.
I'm starting to become a little more disappointed as well and looking at my original options. I still want to see the HR-V, but some of the details do disappoint. I really would have thought this HR-V would have received much better mileage than the CR-V than being so similar.
It does say that from 8 drivers the range is around 24 MPG for the CRV. I would argue that the set MPG shown is based off of more ideal conditions. I'd say overall the HRV will give better MPG results once more feed back is brought in from everyday drivers of the HRV. MPG is a very general rating that varies depending on the driver and conditions it's driving under.
Fuel economy, while important, is way down the list for me relative to some of the other factors. Being able to purchase a CUV with a manual transmission is a major factor. Especially if available equipped, and not stripped as is usually the case with recent manual-tranny options.
Exactly, plus with a vehicle like this, it can only get so bad. The whole vehicle itself naturally gets a good specific range of gas mileage when everything works how it should. Only have to worry if there is some severe issue going on.Fuel economy, while important, is way down the list for me relative to some of the other factors. Being able to purchase a CUV with a manual transmission is a major factor. Especially if available equipped, and not stripped as is usually the case with recent manual-tranny options.
i can do a quick Mileage test ... i have a 24KM streach highway behind my area ...
problem is .. what speed should i hold on to ?
just lemme know ... i'm happy to help....
currently ... here is my mileage test done to and fro ... 24KM stretch ...
1. high speed ... 160km/h to 180km/h = 6.5km/l
2. using cruise control lock at 120km/h = 11.5km/l
problem is .. what speed should i hold on to ?
just lemme know ... i'm happy to help....
currently ... here is my mileage test done to and fro ... 24KM stretch ...
1. high speed ... 160km/h to 180km/h = 6.5km/l
2. using cruise control lock at 120km/h = 11.5km/l
Easy answer. The engine in the CRV is Honda's latest technology and is more efficient. Same with the Fit. The engine in the HRV is old tech. Theoreticaly , with the size of of the HRV being about midway between Fit and Crv ,you might think the mileage would split the difference also. It Doesn't.Serious question. How is it possible the HR-V gets the same mileage as a much larger and heavier CR-v?
Those who believe the real world mileage will compare better are (imo)guilty of wishful thinking .If you have high mileage expectations wait on the inevitable upgrade.
So why would Honda Upgrade existing model lines and then stick an old motor in their new product. Don't Know. Care to speculate?
Corporations make very weird internal decisions. I was an engineer at a Fortune 50 corporation, and I watched in horror as we deliberately left out a 3-cent LED and made the product almost unusable. We invested millions in software workarounds - but some Dilbert-class manager got a pat on the back for removing that 3-cent LED.
I could think of multiple explanations. (1) They didn't want it getting too good, because then they won't be able to charge extra when they put that engine in the HRV-R next year. (2) They just had a cost budget, and the nicer engine busted the budget. (3) They had excess production capacity for the old engine, so this was a great place to use it.
The weird decisions made in your typical corporation strain credulity. Dilbert doesn't even come close to how crazy it gets. Marketing guys are always holding engineers back from making a product too good because it doesn't match their little MBA conceptions. That's why IBM ruined the PC Junior back in the day. That's why Ford won't sell the Ranger in the US. Gotta listen to those marketing geniuses.
I could think of multiple explanations. (1) They didn't want it getting too good, because then they won't be able to charge extra when they put that engine in the HRV-R next year. (2) They just had a cost budget, and the nicer engine busted the budget. (3) They had excess production capacity for the old engine, so this was a great place to use it.
The weird decisions made in your typical corporation strain credulity. Dilbert doesn't even come close to how crazy it gets. Marketing guys are always holding engineers back from making a product too good because it doesn't match their little MBA conceptions. That's why IBM ruined the PC Junior back in the day. That's why Ford won't sell the Ranger in the US. Gotta listen to those marketing geniuses.
Or it comes down to what each market expects. If you go back to when the Vezel was announced and look at this forum, we were all crying because we thought we were going to get stuck with the Fit engine. Too small for the US market. But, the 1.8 Civic engine, well that we were all excited about. And, we need to save something for the Acura version, so we'll have the Turbo there. In Europe, they have to have a diesel option, but you'll never see that here in the US. Too bad... Honda has developed a very flexible platform that can accommodate all these different engines. It is up to the individual market to decide which they'll offer, and at what price.
Excellent point. Some people too will never be happy and think they should get it cause they want it.
Or it comes down to what each market expects. If you go back to when the Vezel was announced and look at this forum, we were all crying because we thought we were going to get stuck with the Fit engine. Too small for the US market. But, the 1.8 Civic engine, well that we were all excited about. And, we need to save something for the Acura version, so we'll have the Turbo there. In Europe, they have to have a diesel option, but you'll never see that here in the US. Too bad... Honda has developed a very flexible platform that can accommodate all these different engines. It is up to the individual market to decide which they'll offer, and at what price.
We could do so much better with gas mileage in this country. Topping out at 32 for a new vehicle is disgusting. I look at the fuel economy of Skoda's cars overseas and it makes me sad how far from that we are. http://www.skoda-auto.com/en/models/new-yeti-outdoor/
I did some homework. Skoda has some cars that get over 60+ mpg. Non-hybrid. Pretty impressive. However, those cars are way slower off the line than most customers in the US would tolerate. The fastest I saw was 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph) in 10.8 s. That one gets 47 mpg. The most efficient I saw gets 69 mpg but gets a miserable 14.2 s for 0-100 km/h.
Just taking a SWAG at it, I'd guess the largest contributing factors to poor efficiency in US cars are:
1. Performance
2. Size
3. Safety standards
4. Features
Except for safety standards, those are all customer driven.
TLDR: Don't blame the companies. Blame the customers.
Just taking a SWAG at it, I'd guess the largest contributing factors to poor efficiency in US cars are:
1. Performance
2. Size
3. Safety standards
4. Features
Except for safety standards, those are all customer driven.
TLDR: Don't blame the companies. Blame the customers.
just playing devils advocate...I did some homework. Skoda has some cars that get over 60+ mpg. Non-hybrid. Pretty impressive. However, those cars are way slower off the line than most customers in the US would tolerate. The fastest I saw was 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph) in 10.8 s. That one gets 47 mpg. The most efficient I saw gets 69 mpg but gets a miserable 14.2 s for 0-100 km/h.
Just taking a SWAG at it, I'd guess the largest contributing factors to poor efficiency in US cars are:
1. Performance
2. Size
3. Safety standards
4. Features
Except for safety standards, those are all customer driven.
TLDR: Don't blame the companies. Blame the customers.
1.) Isn't 10.8 in the 0-60 close to what the HR-V is getting in the initial drivers tests? Not seeing screaming performance here.
2.) HR-V is close in size to the offering Skoda has
3.) not sure about crash test standards, but the list of their other safety specs seems very similar
4.) Features seem very similar... intelligent 4x4, interactive touchscreens, Personally, I don't need backup cameras or lane watch cameras or touch screen climate controls - actually the touch screen climate stuff really disappoints me.
I'm not seeing much if any compromise to get that fuel economy. I've heard it said that U.S. Fuel standards are different. If that is a legitimate excuse (Not convinced it is), Big whoop. Work the problem, improvise engineers.
I'm a customer & I would like companies to DO BETTER. If european manufacturers can do it, the brilliant people at Honda/Toyota/etc. could too.
@RodgeM For whatever reason, the Quote button is getting blocked at work:
"1.) Isn't 10.8 in the 0-60 close to what the HR-V is getting in the initial drivers tests? Not seeing screaming performance here.
2.) HR-V is close in size to the offering Skoda has
3.) not sure about crash test standards, but the list of their other safety specs seems very similar
4.) Features seem very similar... intelligent 4x4, interactive touchscreens, Personally, I don't need backup cameras or lane watch cameras or touch screen climate controls - actually the touch screen climate stuff really disappoints me."
The data I pulled is from the Skoda Fabia. I chose it because it looked like it had the best efficiency of Skoda's lineup and I was comparing it to what you see in the US. It's not the best match to the HR-V size-wise.
1.) We don't have any hard numbers yet, but the 10.8s is at least a half a second and possibly a full second slower. That's the fastest Skoda Fabia, with a turbo diesel.
2.) The HR-V is a foot longer and 5" taller than the Skoda Fabia. Again, I picked that one for its efficiency, not as a direct HR-V competitor.
3.) Safety specs and crash tests are two different animals. You can have all the airbags in the world and it won't help you pass an overlap test.
4.) It's difficult to compare features. Features add weight, decrease power, and affect aerodynamics, but you never see mileage numbers recalculated to take them into account. My best guess is that this is the smallest factor, which is why I listed it 4th.
Engineers can do some awesome stuff, but we're not miracle workers. Just because we used to be able to put a man on the moon doesn't mean we can do anything we put our minds to. Engineering is about compromises. Yes, you can have your highly efficient vehicle, but not for free. It will always come at the expense of other things you want. The question is which do you want more, and are there enough people who want the same things as you to constitute a market worth targeting. High fuel prices in the rest of the world shift that equation toward fuel economy at the expense of size and performance.
"1.) Isn't 10.8 in the 0-60 close to what the HR-V is getting in the initial drivers tests? Not seeing screaming performance here.
2.) HR-V is close in size to the offering Skoda has
3.) not sure about crash test standards, but the list of their other safety specs seems very similar
4.) Features seem very similar... intelligent 4x4, interactive touchscreens, Personally, I don't need backup cameras or lane watch cameras or touch screen climate controls - actually the touch screen climate stuff really disappoints me."
The data I pulled is from the Skoda Fabia. I chose it because it looked like it had the best efficiency of Skoda's lineup and I was comparing it to what you see in the US. It's not the best match to the HR-V size-wise.
1.) We don't have any hard numbers yet, but the 10.8s is at least a half a second and possibly a full second slower. That's the fastest Skoda Fabia, with a turbo diesel.
2.) The HR-V is a foot longer and 5" taller than the Skoda Fabia. Again, I picked that one for its efficiency, not as a direct HR-V competitor.
3.) Safety specs and crash tests are two different animals. You can have all the airbags in the world and it won't help you pass an overlap test.
4.) It's difficult to compare features. Features add weight, decrease power, and affect aerodynamics, but you never see mileage numbers recalculated to take them into account. My best guess is that this is the smallest factor, which is why I listed it 4th.
Engineers can do some awesome stuff, but we're not miracle workers. Just because we used to be able to put a man on the moon doesn't mean we can do anything we put our minds to. Engineering is about compromises. Yes, you can have your highly efficient vehicle, but not for free. It will always come at the expense of other things you want. The question is which do you want more, and are there enough people who want the same things as you to constitute a market worth targeting. High fuel prices in the rest of the world shift that equation toward fuel economy at the expense of size and performance.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Honda HR-V Forum
The world's premier Honda HR-V forum discussing Honda’s Hi-Rider revolutionary vehicle.
Full Forum Listing
