[ddemetra]

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/2015-honda-hr-v-review-road-test-32060

The reviewer is pretty hard on the rear cover being flimsy.
Personally I never like those hard covers as they get in the way. So I like the fact I can hide it away, and only pull it out if I need to cover something in the back.

 

[Bicepeak]

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/2015-honda-hr-v-review-road-test-32060

The reviewer is pretty hard on the rear cover being flimsy.
Personally I never like those hard covers as they get in the way. So I like the fact I can hide it away, and only pull it out if I need to cover something in the back.

Wow.......does anybody ever put groceries on top of the cargo cover? First sudden stop and pow!.... soup cans to the back of the head!


I like the fold up feature too.


Another reviewer from down under that doesn't like the CVT. There was a NA review that liked the CVT, but that was more nostalgia with him for the old Honda automatics.

 

[scooterct]

There seem to a few consistent knocks on the HRV from reviewers, but I'm still going to test drive it with an enthusiastic mind set. I'll see for myself, and I assume most everyone on here will too.

Knock #1 - feels cheap for what you're paying

Knock #2 - kind of sluggish - ok around town, but otherwise lethargic

We'll have the American reviews in a week, with the American market version, and we'll see what they say. Then we can all test it.

One thing I don't think he was fair about - flatly recommending the CX-3 over the HRV. I think you always need to preface that with "if you don't care about cargo space". I saw the CX-3 at NYC, and it has TINY cargo space - very Juke-like. Pretty car. Almost certainly better performance, feel, fuel economy, and looks (Zoom Zoom). But not the car you buy if you regularly carry more than the groceries.

 

[Okhick]

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/2015-honda-hr-v-review-road-test-32060

The reviewer is pretty hard on the rear cover being flimsy.
Personally I never like those hard covers as they get in the way. So I like the fact I can hide it away, and only pull it out if I need to cover something in the back.

Sooo... another reviewer prefers the CX-3. Seems to be a developing pattern.

 

[Ex-cape]

One thing I don't think he was fair about - flatly recommending the CX-3 over the HRV. I think you always need to preface that with "if you don't care about cargo space". I saw the CX-3 at NYC, and it has TINY cargo space - very Juke-like. Pretty car. Almost certainly better performance, feel, fuel economy, and looks (Zoom Zoom). But not the car you buy if you regularly carry more than the groceries.

I get your point and agree. To his credit, I think his recommendation of the CX-3 was his "emotional summary", an overall perception much like we asked of Bicepeak after the Phoenix event. And while features may sway one's decision, I think his overall conclusion is that the Honda feels "cheap".

 

[Vanguard]

There seem to a few consistent knocks on the HRV from reviewers, but I'm still going to test drive it with an enthusiastic mind set. I'll see for myself, and I assume most everyone on here will too.

Knock #1 - feels cheap for what you're paying

Knock #2 - kind of sluggish - ok around town, but otherwise lethargic

We'll have the American reviews in a week, with the American market version, and we'll see what they say. Then we can all test it.

One thing I don't think he was fair about - flatly recommending the CX-3 over the HRV. I think you always need to preface that with "if you don't care about cargo space". I saw the CX-3 at NYC, and it has TINY cargo space - very Juke-like. Pretty car. Almost certainly better performance, feel, fuel economy, and looks (Zoom Zoom). But not the car you buy if you regularly carry more than the groceries.

I also found it strange he did not mention the magic seats Honda HR-V has. Those can make a HUGE difference when loading cargo (perhaps he did not know they were even there). As for the "cheap" feel, I will need to see that for myself. I was not overly impressed with the "feel" of my wife's Mazda CX-5 for that matter, so I guess that category is subjective.

Here is, in my opinion, a much more accurate review of the HR-V (also from Au).

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/2015-honda-hr-v-vti-l-adas-review-31390#.VTr1Blo-Gjc

 

[Okhick]

I also found it strange he did not mention the magic seats Honda HR-V has. Those can make a HUGE difference when loading cargo (perhaps he did not know they were even there). As for the "cheap" feel, I will need to see that for myself. I was not overly impressed with the "feel" of my wife's Mazda CX-5 for that matter, so I guess that category is subjective.

Here is, in my opinion, a much more accurate review of the HR-V (also from Au).

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/2015-honda-hr-v-vti-l-adas-review-31390#.VTr1Blo-Gjc

So you say its more accurate review but still rates the HRV with only 4 0f 5 stars. Skip to the bottom to see review for CX-3... 4.5 stars.

In most things but cargo and passenger capacity reviewers favor the CX. Granted, this is no trivial advantage and may well be the main consideration for many. For me , it is also important, though not at the top of my list. So the HRV deserves a test ride even though I am leaning strongly towards the CX-3. As I think we agree, reviews are fine but nothing substitutes for the hands on experience.
Might try a Soul too, but they sure are homely.

 

[Vanguard]

Okhick, I can't help but think someone who is willing to downsize to a smaller, more fuel efficient automobile, is also wanting as much "cargo and passenger capacity", they can get. The transition from a large automobile to a small one is difficult enough, without the constant reminder of less space being so obvious. Even I think the Mazda has a better "look". But when loading kids and groceries, while trying to extend MPG at the same time, or needing an automobile you can load bikes into, I doubt looks will tilt the decision much. At least it does not for me.

Having said that, we own a Mazda CX-5 that we purchased last June. It is a good looking car, and my Wife loves it. However, we also have the Honda Odyssey van available for cargo and passenger capability. Someone without that type vehicle might think twice before purchasing an automobile with less cargo and passenger capability, rather than more.

 

[Okhick]

I agree. If purchasing a car in this class and having to rely on it as the primary passenger and cargo carrier for the family, space/utility trumps many other virtues.

You say the Mazda has a better "look" as though that is its principal advantage, but in ways other than interior volume (unless a test drive reveals otherwise) its better car.

 

[Vanguard]

i agree. If purchasing a car in this class and having to rely on it as the primary passenger and cargo carrier for the family, space/utility trumps many other virtues.

You say the mazda has a better "look" as though that is its principal advantage, but in ways other than interior volume (unless a test drive reveals otherwise) its better car.

tbd.......

 

[Okhick]

I'm kind of yanking you guy's chain a bit. I am also active on the CX-3 forum and I'm jealous this one gets about 5 or 10 times the traffic. So I see a lot more interest in the HRV which is sure to be reflected in sales.
They are really different type cars aimed at buyers with different priorities, never mind they are both classed as mini utes.
Apples and Oranges.
In defense of the Honda.
The reviewers are judging them as driver's cars and as such the Mazda is going to come out on top. Were they to take them home and live with them a while, the Mazda's space constrains might tend to wear on them.

For those intent on buying the Honda, I would wait on an inevitable power train upgrade. Don't know why Honda saddled it with this obsolete under- powered inefficient motor to start with.
Had they not, I for one, would sure be looking a lot harder at the HRV.

 

[scooterct]

Hah! So we have an enemy agent for the CX3!

That's OK. I think the folks who watched my postings probably think I'm a marketing agent for Kia (I'm not - just an amazingly happy customer).

CX-3 is still on my list. Saw it at NYC. Pretty car. Zoom-zoom (I've had 2 Miatas and #3 coming in September).

s

 

[Topspot]

I haven't seen (or read) anybody compare the resale value of the Honda versus the competition. Honda vehicles hold their value much better than the cars they compete against which is a feature that should be considered in any evaluation.

 

[scooterct]

Resale value is a big sticky morass. The instant you don't pay MSRP (other brands can offer 20% to 30% discounts), it becomes worse than useless as a comparative tool.

In computer science, we call that "garbage in, garbage out". The formula is valid, but the input is bogus.

 

[idearat]

Hang on just a minute... I just did some looking at the CX-3. Must be getting desparate, because I'm in the (apparent) minority of people that really dislikes the whole Kodo look. And what do I find, from the 'zoom-zoom' company that makes driver's cars and gets all the votes from the performance-oriented journos?

No manual transmission!?!! What is UP with that? Are there so few real drivers left??

Sigh. Another one bites the dust... not that it was ever a contender for me. I will not drink the automatic kool-aid until it's forced on me, and hopefully by then the car will be self-driving so I won't care.

 

[Okhick]

I haven't seen (or read) anybody compare the resale value of the Honda versus the competition. Honda vehicles hold their value much better than the cars they compete against which is a feature that should be considered in any evaluation.

Important point that reflects true cost of ownership and one that works strongly in Honda's favor. I've owned 3 Hondas and 3 Mazdas over the years, all very reliable. Trade in was great on the Hondas , and fair to good on the Mazdas, I took a real shellacking on my Kia Rondo and Olds Intrigue.

But as Scooterct says it may not be as simple as all that. Most subtract trade in value from list price to determine depreciation ignoring upfront discounts on initial purchase. Honda dealers are notorious for not dealing. I got some pretty nice discounts on the Mazdas. My brother recently bought a new Hyundai Sonota at a 5 grand discount, and that is a recently introduced model.

Idearat, I too think that Kodo design is overated and the Mazda 3 borders on homely. But imo it works far better with the proportions of the CX-3
Your point about the lack of manual on the CX3, supposedly a drivers car is valid. However for those of us forced to deal with an auto to keep peace with the wife, I far and away prefer the CX-3 s very efficient 6sp auto to the droning CVT in the Honda.
Anyway cvts and most autos are now faster and more efficient than the manuals. Do we really need to jerk our passengers around with every shift to get out jollies?
I like driving manuals. Man machine direct connection and all that. I don't like riding in them, especially if the driver is keen to show his manly prowess.

 

[scooterct]

If we all had exactly the same tastes, 7 billion men would be chasing one woman, and 7 billion women would be chasing one man.

There's someone for everyone, and it's that way in automotive styling too. One person's homely is another person's beautiful.

I must say though, as a Mazda-lover, you caught my attention when you said no standard. That's very un-Mazda.

And no-automatic is becoming a trend. Kia dropped the manual on the higher level Soul trims, which bummed us out. I suspect it's not a cost thing - they have the manual and still put it in the base. It's a marketing thing - nobody buys automatics any more (except me and my wife, who hate automatics with a deep and abiding passion).

s

 

[Okhick]

A wife who prefers manuals? Has she got a sister?

(Just kidding Grace)

 

[idearat]

okhick, I agree, those who jerk their passengers around with every shift of a manual should be driving an automatic. One reason I prefer a manual (used to be called 'standard', remember?) is that it's possible with skill and attention to deliver a silky-smooth drive that no automatic I've ever driven (or ridden in) can match, all while making the best use of the available power.

The key words being skill and attention. I take great pleasure in what you might call the art or craft of driving, and pride in honing my skill, and I like the direct control of a manual.

But I don't mean to imply it's for everyone, or that driving an automatic can't be enjoyable too, or that you're not a "real driver" or "real man" if you don't like manuals. My CX-3 rant was somewhat tongue-in-cheek; as scooterct points out everybody's preferences and priorities are different. Thankfully.

 

[idearat]

A wife who prefers manuals? Has she got a sister?

(Just kidding Grace)

She's not a sister, but my wife feels the same. I taught her to drive manual 25 years ago, and she feels, if anything, more strongly about it than I do.