Honda CR-V: new SUV to be cheaper than ever

By Tim Beissmann
June 28th, 2012

FIND DEALS

The all-new fourth-generation Honda CR-V will be cheaper than any version of the compact SUV to come before it when it launches in Australia in November.

Honda Australia director Stephen Collins told CarAdvice the addition of an entry-level front-wheel-drive variant – a first for the local range – would almost certainly see the CR-V’s starting price fall to its lowest level in history.

“We still need to finalise it, but certainly you don’t need to be Einstein to work out two-wheel-drive has got to be cheaper than a four-wheel-drive,” Collins said.

Like the two generations before it, the outgoing third-generation CR-V is available only with four-wheel-drive, and starts at $28,090 for the base model manual.

With the exception of the Subaru Forester, all of the top selling mid-sized SUVs in Australia are available with a front-wheel-drive option, with the entry-level variants of the Holden Captiva 5, Kia Sportage and the Mazda CX-5 all available for under $28,000.

“For us, that will be the first time with two-wheel-drive and I think consumers are really demanding that sort of variant now,” Collins said.

“We’re confident two-wheel-drive and the four-wheel-drive will be well priced and competitive and really enable us to get CR-V back amongst the top sellers in that segment.”

Sales of the CR-V have all but dried up in 2012 in the wake of last year’s Thailand floods and in the lead up to the launch of the new model. Just 498 were sold in the first five months of this year, down from 2207 over the same period in 2011, leaving the CR-V with just a 1.3 per cent share of the medium SUV segment. Honda Australia sold 5748 CR-Vs in 2011, giving it a 6.9 per cent market share.

The Nissan X-Trail is currently the most popular mid-sized SUV in Australia, with 6641 sales to May giving it a 17.3 per cent share of the market. The Toyota RAV4 (5887, 15.4 per cent), Subaru Forester (4983, 13.0 per cent) and the Mazda CX-5 (4602, 12.0 per cent) follow close behind.

The new US-market CR-V made its debut at the 2011 Los Angeles motor show in November and went on sale the following month. Australia’s CR-V will be based on the Euro-spec model, which gets slightly softened, more refined styling and is set to go on sale in Europe in the coming months.

A near-production-ready prototype was showcased at the 2012 Geneva motor show in March.

Final specifications are still to be revealed, although the US-spec CR-V is powered by an upgraded version of the outgoing model’s 2.4-litre petrol engine producing 138kW of power and 221Nm of torque – up 13kW/3Nm from the old model.

Fuel economy of the new US-spec model improved around 10 per cent compared with the old model. A similar improvement in Australia would see the all-wheel-drive model fall to around 9.0 litres per 100km, with the lighter front-wheel-drive variants to be even more efficient.

Collins also confirmed Australia’s CR-V range would definitely include a diesel engine, and while a 2013 launch appears likely, the timing is still to be finalised.

“We will have diesel in CR-V, it’s just a question of when we can nail it down,” he said. “It certainly won’t be this year.”

Details of the Mk4 CR-V’s diesel engine have not been revealed at this stage. The current 2.2-litre diesel available in Europe and parts of Asia produces 110kW of power and 350Nm of torque, and uses 6.5L/100km in four-wheel-drive manual guise (7.4L/100km for the automatic).

The fourth-generation Honda CR-V is set to benefit from number of new features including a large multi-function display screen, integrated Bluetooth phone connectivity and a rear-view camera, among others.

The full local specifications will be revealed closer to its November launch.

Sponsored Ads

Utcgct

It looks alright
Daniel

Probably a good thing, seeing as it’s also uglier than ever.
- FanBoi
  
  The rear is an ugly copy of Volvo XC60.
  And what is the difference between CRV’s 4 wheel drive system and front wheel drive??
  I had a 2nd generation CRV and front wheel lost traction and spun form hours before the rear wheels kick in.
  
  Honda is boring and ugly.
  //
Schn

Rear is starting to look more Volvo than Honda now. I like the front end design though.
carl

The cheaper the price the more attractive it looks )
- Smart US
  
  thats the best comment ever
- Nasal Explorer
  
  Just like hookers.
josh

Nice car.
Antmindel

It looks great in the flesh,I have spent the last month in the USA,and the new CRV is extremely popular there.
http://twitter.com/klowik klowik

It looks bigger than CX-5. It should attract more sales if the diesel with auto is cheaper than CX-5.
Pauly

Diesel and Auto!!! COMMON HONDA AUSTRALIA!!! Its really not that hard!!!
- Adam
  
  Learn to use a third pedal. It’s really not that hard!
D4D

I bet it will sell well! Its main rival the current RAV4 is already 7 years old…and looks like Toyota is going to keep it for another 7 years more~~
- FanBoi
  
  The main rival will be CX-5 not RAV4!
  
  //
Mr Frobisher

The styling still looks too Nth American for my tastes, but a marginal improvement over the current dud CRV. If the price is right it should do well.
Marcuspetraska

looks pretty good – really needs to have a 6speed auto this time
ScottT

Improvement on the old car, but its probably only cheaper because it brings nothing new to the table. Carry over engine has been around for ten years, I used to be a fan but Honda have dropped the ball of late.
Gus

Looked good whilst visiting US last month.. I’d however wait to see what the new XTrail looks like
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=737660467 Kit Ho

that rear end is straight off the XC60
- Andre Gall
  
  It is not taken from the Volvo. Honda make their own
  - Phunken
    
    If Honda making it their own by uglifying the Volvo XC60 vertical stack rear light cluster and the hunched look than yes. Too much chrome and Americanese for my taste.
crummydore

That looks much better than the current model, and I don’t think Honda,need get too hung up over the diesel thing – their petrol 4′s are and always have been sweet motors – stick with what they do well.

I will also add that I would be much happier to hand over my hard earned cash to a car company with a reputation for building quality cars for a mighty long time than say a Sportage for instance.

Lets see how it fairs against the CX5 which is the most obvious serious competitor. And going by the reports of the lack of performance from Mazdas petrol model it will be an interesting contest.
I know everything

This is a real great car and much better than the Landcruiser. Now if only Honda made a V8 diesel hybrid for it then it would be perfect.
Mick Dunn

It looks much more resolved than the current model and better than the new US model too. Honda are still kicking on with that 2.4. When was the last time they introduced a new engine?
Phunken

Honda CRV and Rav4 are really falling behind the SUVcurve ball.
In the early days they don’t have much competitions, most people either get a real 4WD or a luxury offerings from Merc ML, BMW X5 or Lexus RX. However Peopleare more switched on and will choose more chic saavy Tiguan/CX5 up to XC60 etc inline with a more lifestyle offering vs the soccer mum practicality ideology, on the other spectrum are your improved ‘competitive’ newcomers like iX35/Sportage etc that offer the same practicality but at a more convincing price range with better consumer friendly “euro inspired” styling and larger variance. Ford should know how important diesel is, took them ages to introduced the Diesel to the Territory. Honda used to be a no brainer but they’re still operating on a late 90s business model. VW is the only mainstream brand that can do ‘conservative’ which Honda now can’t afford to follow.
Jinnzhang

XXXXXXXX(deleted) after seeing quite a few people saying it is pretty.
nugsdad

I think it looks alright. Interesting how the X-Trail does so well just under the radar ( I note not one comment mentions it) but is the top seller, even above RAV4 and the Toyota dealer network.
- Richo
  
  The X-Trail has strong sales into the rental market where the other brands sell more to private buyers.
theillestlife

this is the 4th generation.

1st gen: 1997-2001
2nd gen: 2001-2006
3rd gen: 2007-2011
4th gen: this articles one.
Norm

“We still need to finalise it, but certainly you don’t need to be Einstein to work out two-wheel-drive has got to be cheaper than a four-wheel-drive,” Collins said.
Sounds like that interview went well them? Groundbreaking stuff.
ciaros

I have 2nd gen 2005 SE CR-V-best car , i bought not new,(85k) if this 4th gen with 2.2 or so oiler will be better- might consider trade!
K2

have owned 2 CRV,s and will likely buy a third ( they aren,t pretty) but they are surprisingly versatile, good on country roads, good in the city. Light duty towing no problem, light duty off-roading no problem. Not interested in diesel option for a vehicle this size – refuelling is not a great experience ( especially when neatly attired ) Diesel is a better option for work vehicles.
John

It’s weird how some people say it’s ugly. I bought the current model because I thought it looked awesome. Thanks to the improved rear end the new one looks even better. Extremely reliable car and never had a problem with the 4wd system although I would have preferred a manual select option. I’ve taken it up some pretty steep terrain and in deep river sand. No issues provided you in the right gear and switch off VSA. I’ve waited a long time for the diesel so it’s dissapointing that the fuel economy is not exactly earth shattering. I almost get those figures on the highway with the petrol version. That said the petrol version is a frigging gas guzzler around town! The 55L tank is a joke for a 2.4L. Should be at least 70L
Rick

If Honda could make something that looks like the Peugeot 207 or 308 Tourer (SW) in Diesel with the same Diesel economy they would have a customer for life. Honda reliability with European styling. The current line up is looking very tired. I love my CRV but it’s rather pointless 99% of the time, heavy on gas and not exactly “zippy” . It looks small until you sitting next to it in a normal sedan. It’s quite big and heavy. The absolute dream car for me: Honda Diesel (that looks like the Puegeot 308 tourer) with 4wd selection and shocks that can rise like the old Citroens.
Anti-disposable entity

I have a 2005 Honda CR-V base 2.4 manual, the indoors director (wife) has a 2003 CR-V auto. Both cars have now each done 200,000 kms plus. Always serviced by the book. NEVER had any mechanical, electrical, or other issues with either car.
Auto can be thirsty around town, does about 13.5 l/100 km with wife’s lead boots. Manual does 12 around town, 9.5 highway, with 5 people on board. Could be better, but I value reliability and longevity over expectations of motorcycle-like fuel economy; what extra I spend on fuel I more than make up for with reliability and long-lasting engines / transmissions.

Pretty cars are really for those with insecurities. Pretty is high maintenance. Practicality makes life simpler. I admit, a practical car doesn’t need to look like a garden shed with wheels, if it can be made to be “pretty”, it has to be easier to sell. Lemmings will still buy impractical, expensive turds if they have enough polish on them.

Gen 2 / 2.5 CR-Vs aren’t the pretiest car ever, but they are PRACTICAL for use as a taxi for the kids, a towtruck for the 16 foot pop-top caravan or boat, and as an effective means of moving from almost any point “A” to almost any point “B” on the map. I can park in any Corolla-sized parking space with ease. CR-V’s will even go up a snowy road or through mud. They even take a bit of abuse without having a hissyfit. Your “pretty” cars couldn’t handle that gig !. The comfort is more than acceptable, especially given the price.

Most of the so called economical-to-run small turbodiesels are not economical when the particulate filter or the EGR system clogs, the engine chokes, the turbo overboosts, forcing the injection rich, and pistons melt off their wrist pins and drop into the sump. Ask any ZD30 Patrol owner, a suprisingly large number of Toyota Prado owners, or any one else who drives a sub 3.0 litre four cylinder “Euro 3 or 4″ compliant diesel with more than 60,000k’s on the clock. I’d rather spend a little extra over time on fuel, than a huge amount occasionally on a engine rebuild.