Honda HR-V Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Currently I drive Nissan Qashkai 2 L 144 hp, AT, 2x4. It's 7 years old and I decided to get a new car. HRV is a reasonable option for me because it's almost the same size. One week ago I made a test-drive of HRV 1.5 L, 130 hp, AT (CVT) 2x4. The first thing I was afraid of was insufficient power of the engine. Fortunately it's not true. The car is very responsive to accelerator especially in sport mode. Yes, it's not so sporty as Qashkai but it is absolutely suits my style of driving. On a highway I made some speed accelerations and HRV response was more than sufficient. After that, I checked the car behavior on speed bumps without braking and was really surprised by soft moving of the car. My next check was going uphill and downhill. When I drove uphill at 90 km/hour the tachometer never went above 2500 - 3000 rpm. Driving downhill at speed 110 km/hour and changing lanes in rather risky way I felt that VSA (vehicle stability system) corrects a speed of the car to prevent it from dangerous maneuvers. I liked it. Speaking of noise of CVT transmission I would say it's not disturbing comparing with my Nissan Qashkai. I think people will get along with it after one day of driving, especially taking in consideration that CVT transmission is very smooth and helps to keep a fuel consumption in very low figures. Of course, I like the trunk size and magic rear seats as well. As a result of the test-drive I ordered the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
So jealous of the 1.5
Wish it was offered in North America

Thanks for the review
What's your reason of preference of 1.5 engine?
As I said before, now I drive a car with 2.0 engine.
I'd be glad to have 2.0 engine for HR-V as it done on Mazda CX-3.
I like HR-V more than CX-3 but 2.0 engine would make it the best SUV in the segment. Now people have choice between sporty CX-3 with small boot capacity and solid HR-V. it's just a subject of driver preference.
Speaking of tax for 1.5 engine (in comparison with 2.0) in EU, the difference in annual tax is not so significant - about 120 USD per year.
CO2 emission factor is more important for tax and here HR-V is very friendly for environment: Level 3 in accordance with Euro 6 standard. For comparison: Toyota Prius Hybrid and Honda Jazz/Fit Hybrid are Level 2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,361 Posts
What's your reason of preference of 1.5 engine?
As I said before, now I drive a car with 2.0 engine.
I'd be glad to have 2.0 engine for HR-V as it done on Mazda CX-3.
I like HR-V more than CX-3 but 2.0 engine would make it the best SUV in the segment. Now people have choice between sporty CX-3 with small boot capacity and solid HR-V. it's just a subject of driver preference.
Speaking of tax for 1.5 engine (in comparison with 2.0) in EU, the difference in annual tax is not so significant - about 120 USD per year.
CO2 emission factor is more important for tax and here HR-V is very friendly for environment: Level 3 in accordance with Euro 6 standard. For comparison: Toyota Prius Hybrid and Honda Jazz/Fit Hybrid are Level 2.
I have the 1.8 in Canada, which is a great, reliable engine, but it is 10 years old.
The newer engines they get in Europe both gas and diesel are more efficient.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I have the 1.8 in Canada, which is a great, reliable engine, but it is 10 years old.
The newer engines they get in Europe both gas and diesel are more efficient.
What do you mean by engine efficiency?
1.5 engine of HR-V has 130 hp at 6600 rpm and max. moment of 15.8 kg*m at 4600 rpm, 10.7 sec for 0 - 100 km/hour.
Fuel consumption: city/highway: 6.1/4.6 per 100 km.
What are the spec of your 1.8 engine?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,361 Posts
What do you mean by engine efficiency?
1.5 engine of HR-V has 130 hp at 6600 rpm and max. moment of 15.8 kg*m at 4600 rpm, 10.7 sec for 0 - 100 km/hour.
Fuel consumption: city/highway: 6.1/4.6 per 100 km.
What are the spec of your 1.8 engine?
The 1.8 engine has 141 hp at 6500 rpm and max.
Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm) 127 @ 4300 or 17.526 kg*m


Fuel consumption: city/highway: 8.3/6.7 per 100 km.
That's for the 2WD CVT

That equates to 8% less hp, but 36% better city mileage, and 46% more highway mileage.
I"m not sure about the different testing methodology, so the numbers may not be directly comparable.

A good improvement in my eyes
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top