• Most rear legroom and boot space in the compact SUV class; competitive pricing; punchy 2.4-litre; enjoyably balanced handling; urban ride compliance
  • Underpowered entry-level 2.0-litre; steering takes a backwards step; hard dash plastics; quieter than before, but still affected by roar on coarse chip surfaces

8 / 10

2013 Honda CR-V Review
2013 Honda CR-V Review
2013 Honda CR-V Review
by Daniel DeGasperi

Nine per cent increased body rigidity, 13 per cent greater fuel efficiency, slightly improved useability, up to 122kg lighter – the fourth-generation Honda CR-V is a compact SUV of slight but consistent improvement.

At its local launch through the rolling hills outside of Adelaide, the latest CR-V combined that bunch of improvements to prove decidedly impressive. It simply builds on what was already one of the best models in the segment.

Based on the same platform as the previous generation car, which launched in 2006, the new Honda CR-V runs a strut-front/multi-link rear suspension design.

For the first time, Honda will offer a $27,490 front-drive model, tagged VTi (above), although anyone who has driven a previous CR-V on sand may think this is nothing new – the small Honda has always pulled from the front, with the barest of help from the rear axle. Alloy wheels with a full-size alloy spare, a reversing camera, and cruise control are standard.

Unfortunately – and let’s get the bad bits out of the way first – the VTi starter follows the folly of the Mazda CX-5 by offering a 2.0-litre naturally aspirated four-cylinder engine. Producing 114kW (same as the Mazda) at 6500rpm and 190Nm (10Nm less than CX-5) at 4300rpm, what those figures translate to on-road is ‘not nearly enough to shift a 1460kg wagon’.

2013 Honda CR-V Review
2013 Honda CR-V Review
2013 Honda CR-V Review
2013 Honda CR-V Review

Ditching the rear drive shafts may have saved weight, but tearing 0.4-litres from the engine negates the benefits, particularly in the case of the $2300-optional five-speed auto variant we tested. The engine itself is wonderfully smooth, keen, and quiet, a superior unit to that in the Mazda. Performance feels decent in a straight line, and the auto is keen to drop gears to avoid losing speed on hills, but the front-drive Honda CR-V VTi needs to be worked to maintain country-road speed.

The cumulative result of throttle prodding and revs flaring is … a hardly-earned thirst. On our drive through the hills, the trip computer showed 16L/100km, before settling at 9.5L – Honda claims 7.7L/100km combined for the VTi auto front driver.

It’s wise to spend the extra on the all-wheel-drive models, which continue with the carry-over 2.4-litre engine the Honda CR-V deserves.

Now available with a five-speed auto only, the VTi 4WD costs $32,790 (and adds paddle shifters, alarm and roof rails over the front driver), rising through the $36,290 VTi-S 4WD (above – including parking sensors, sat-nav, dual-zone climate control, auto lights, a leather tiller and fog lights), and $42,990 VTi-L 4WD (below – with 18s, sunroof, leather trim, auto entry and HID lights).

Like the 2.0-litre, and most Honda engines, the 2.4-litre is a gem. It revs with verve to 7000rpm, where its 140kW is produced. That’s a 12 per cent increase in power over the last CR-V, and the same figure the Accord Euro produced back in 2003. But it doesn’t absolutely need revs, because the 222Nm provides good tractability. That said, maximum torque is made at 4400rpm, so the excellent auto rarely allows the engine to hang at the bottom end of the tacho. The five-speed may be one ratio short of fashion, but it’s smarter than many six speeders (including that in the CX-5, which needlessly chases tall gears). Honda claims 8.7L/100km combined, down from 10L in the old model.

2013 Honda CR-V Review
2013 Honda CR-V Review
2013 Honda CR-V Review
2013 Honda CR-V Review

With a 1580kg kerb weight, the all-wheel-drive variants drop 20kg compared with the previous generation. They retain an ‘on demand’ four-wheel-drive system which only enlivens the rear axle when the fronts begin to slip. The CR-V still lacks a ‘4×4 lock’ button, which on Kia Sportage and Hyundai ix35 rivals, locks drive at 50:50 between the axles. A front-drive variant with the 2.4-litre engine would be an ideal combination, but it doesn’t exist…

Inherent to all Honda CR-Vs is a brilliantly packaged cabin. In a family car application, boot space is crucial and here the Honda trumps its rivals. Its 556-litre cargo area is 100L bigger than before, 153L larger than the Mazda CX-5, and 206L bigger than the Volkswagen Tiguan. Particularly impressive is that the capacious boot is achieved with a full-size alloy spare underneath – the previous model was the first to shift the spare from the tailgate to underfloor.

Replacing the previous CR-V’s sliding rear seat, and flip and tumble-fold function, is a smarter system. A single lever in the cargo area downs the headrests, tilts the seat base against the front seats, and drops the backrest to create a flat floor. The seat no longer slides, but it extends cargo-bay length by 140mm, and expands capacity by 148L.

At the launch, Honda provided a previous-generation CR-V to directly compare with the new one. Only with the old car’s rear seat at its furthest back was legroom about par with the latest CR-V. Headroom is much more generous in the new generation. This is despite a 30mm reduction in exterior length and height.

2013 Honda CR-V Review
2013 Honda CR-V Review
2013 Honda CR-V Review
2013 Honda CR-V Review

Rear air vents have been added (like Tiguan, unlike CX-5), the two-tier reclining backrest retained, and legroom is among the best in its class. A flat floor means the centre-rear rider doesn’t impinge on the foot space of outboard passengers.

The Honda CR-V now gets a full centre console, with a central colour screen and different dash appliques. Although plastics are of the hard variety, finish is excellent and seat comfort fine.

Driving the old CR-V first, it still impresses with surprisingly sharp hydraulic power-assisted steering, and a flat cornering stance. Obvious road noise and restless ride quality expose the wrinkles in this six-year-old model.

Honda says it worked hard to improve the ride and refinement of the new fourth-generation CR-V, and it shows. The greater expanse of dashboard – the A-pillars have been pushed forwards 60mm – makes the new CR-V feel like a bigger car, and that’s supported by a feeling of sophistication in the way it drives. There’s still some intrusions, both jiggling over craggy bitumen and roar from the wheel arches over coarse chip tar, but nothing like the previous model – it’s good, rather than average.

Unfortunately, the new electro-mechanical steering system is a retrograde step – but it’s an easier one to accept in a compact SUV than, say, a Porsche 911. There’s a vacancy on-centre that doesn’t exist with the old car, and a nervous reactivity just either side of it. The system is at its best when exercising through the full rotation, where it’s consistently light and reasonably direct.

2013 Honda CR-V Review

It’s particularly disappointing when the steering connects to a fine chassis. Despite the increased ride comfort, the CR-V remains one of the most keen-handling SUVs in the class. It isn’t soggy like the Subaru Forester and Mitsubishi Outlander, nor harsh and bouncy like the Sportage and ix35 cousins. Instead, it feels agile at the front end. Brake deep into the corner, and it’s possible to feel the rear shift slightly to help with front-end point. Most impressively, the stability control completely trusts the chassis; the electronics understand that inherent suspension composure is the first line of active-safety defence.

Few buyers will need a Sunday scratch from their compact SUV. But we’d like to think that even a parent who once owned a sporty car, but is currently dealing with domesticity, would occasionally seek enjoyment from their family car.

It’s the ability to lug people and loads better than most rivals, and provide a healthy dose of driving enjoyment, that marks the Honda CR-V as one of the best sub-$45K offerings. The CX-5 and Tiguan class leaders now have a fine rival, and the new Outlander, which launches next month, will need to be good…

  Submit an Owner Car Review


2013 Honda CR-V Review
  • 8
  • 7
  • 8
  • 8
  • 7
  Submit an Owner Car Review

  • bruzzer

    “for the first time, the spare has been shifted from the tailgate to underfloor.”

    i thought the last CRV had the spare in the under floor, how is this a first time?

    but good review

    • Daniel DeGasperi

      Cheers bruzzer, you’re spot-on there, and thanks for the note. It isn’t like there was a previous CR-V there to remind me… Oh, wait… -Dan 

  • Chevrons

    If the 2.0L VTi struggles with it’s own weight, I think it may turn off a few buyers looking for a vehicle with a towpack to pull a small van or boat.

    • Phil

      Exaggeration. There are plenty of the original CRVs still driving around without struggling and they only had 94KW, weighed just as much with most Australians going for the auto which only had 4 speeds.
      It wont be at all fast, but the typical person who like to buy these toy 4WDs should find the performance perfectly adequate for normal driving or for towing a small trailer.

      • MisterZed

        I had the original CR-V with the 2.0L engine (though mine was the revised 108 kW version), and it was terribly underpowered.  It was a very quiet engine but it was just completely gutless (mine was auto). This was in a vehicle that was only 1400kg.

        • Phil

           Why did you buy it it was terribly underpowered?

          • MisterZed

            Because they all were underpowered at the time. There were no 2.4L small SUVs back then – RAV4, Forester, etc. were all 2.0L only.

          • Phil

             Well it was obviously acceptable if you went ahead and bought it anyway – and paid extra for the slower automatic!

            Also Forester was available back then with a 130KW Turbo and Mazda Tribute/Ford Escape had a 3.0 with 150KW.

          • MisterZed

            I got the CR-V in March 2000 – the Escape & Tribute didn’t come out until 2001. It was $31,990 drive-away – the Forester turbo was about 6-7 grand more than this – too much at the time. It was a first car so while I did test drive it before buying, I had no real basis of comparison as far as engine performance went. For the era, it was okay.

          • terri7

             We bought a Forester in 2000, and the turbo wasn’t one we considered suitable for our needs.
            The Forester was quite OK for the two of us, but when we had extra people on board, the lack of power became evident. Overtaking was the main problem.
            Eventually I couldn’t face the front passenger seat when my wife drove, as it was set too low for my comfort. We’ll be looking at the new model, and that’s the first thing I’ll be checking, as my wife does most of the driving now.
            She loved the Forester!

  • M.

    Great review. The new CRV deserves to sell very well, and hopefully for Honda’s sake it does. Having seen one in person I can say that it is indeed a very classy SUV, great exterior presence and a classy interior (in the luxury model I viewed). This deserves to outsell the bland CX-5. 

    • Sumpguard

      How so? The cx5 may be bland but at least it’s not ugly. 

      • M.

        CRV: Better engine (4WD), transmission, significantly more boot space; and I think, better looking. In pictures, the front end looks great but the back a little strange, i’ll admit. But in person, it really is a classy looking vehicle. 

        • Mad Max

          I agree M. In the pictures its a bit odd looking but I called into my local dealer on Saturday to have a look and was impressed. Generaly I don’t like SUV type vehicles but this new CRV is the first one that I’ve sat in that I would actualy buy. The rear looks a bit Volvo like and in the metal, look good.

        • Pro346

          If you think butt ugly is attractive…

        • matt

          “Better engine (4WD)” for now……

      • Hehe

        it’s not all about looks you know.
        However, I have to say the interior of the CX 5 is better compared to the VTi models. 
        But the CX 5 drives like a cow. The CRV 2.4 drives much better. In case some points out that the CX 5 is a 2.0L, yes I am aware of that but I’m comparing 2 vehicles based on price, which is what most consumers would do I assume

        • Wile E Coyote

          Nah its not about the price its about the marketing just ask M

        • Grace

          Based on price? The middle of the range CRV is far better value than the equivalent CX-55. It is pretty much the same price but you get rear parking sensors, auto dimming rear view mirror, sportier engine, far bigger boot, fancy alloy wheels and live traffic updates

      • Henry Toussaint

        Actually, the CX-5 does look ugly at some views..well to me it does. But have you seen the second photo from the top, the gold CR-V, that doesn’t look very good.

      • Zaccy16

        Exactly, at least the CX5 has a better quality interior, has an option of a fantastic diesel engine and the new 2.5 will use less fuel than the 2.4 in this, also the honda has an old fashioned 5 speed auto when the mazda has a very advanced 6 speeder 

        • VTiR

          “a very advances 6 speeder” ? Just because it has an extra gear, doesn’t mean it’s more advance. If you read the review of the CRV you’ll see they specifically address this vs. the CX5

          “The five-speed may be one ratio short of fashion, but it’s smarter than many six speeders (including that in the CX-5, which needlessly chases tall gears)”

          Further proof that 6 speed auto’s are NOT the be all and end all. 

          • Zaccy16

            It is advanced have you driven one? i have in a skyactiv 3. It is a fantastic tranny, it has a lock up clutch 85% of the time and is very smooth and has quick shifts like a DCT, it is upshifting for economy but i admit that the 2.0 lacks torque in the cx5 so it feels slow but thats not a issue in the diesel or the 2.5

          • Hehe

            I test drove both the CRV and the CX5. Personally I think CRV’s 5 speeder is better than CX5’s. It is more decisive and uses the correct gear all the time. Power delivery is smooth and there are no surprises. CX 5, on the other hand, is tuned to constantly find the right gear to save fuel, sacrificing power and driving experience. With the lack of power, drivers tend to have a heavier right foot, which kind of negates the efficiency Cx5 was hoping for. Try googling real time FC on normal driving and you’ll see what I mean

  • nickdl

    The back looks inspired by a Pontiac Aztek. Never a good thing…

    • Nasal Explorer

      If it gives extra luggage space, it could be very good thing. Too many SUV’s are big on the outside, but don’t offer any decent boot size.

  • Phil

    Sounds like this new CRV is quite a respectable choice in a hotly-contested segment.

    • Zaccy16

      it seems a much better option then the awful captiva 5, current outlander, forester and the koreans-ix35 and sportage but i would still choose a tiguan, cx5 or yeti over this

  • Loft

    The rear lights remind me of a Volvo xc60 or 90

  • Grads

    Does anyone notice the slots for DRL are now empty? I believe LEDs cost a lot here in Australia.

    • MDR279

      Hey grads, it’s hard to distinguish but if you look closely at the headlights in the pictures there’s a small strip of LED daylight running lights rights at the bottom. 

      • Robster

        Gents, unfortunately CR-V’s in Oz don’t come with DRL LED’s, yes to overseas and they look awesome in the pics, but for some stupid reason they canned it here when they’re becoming a good feature to be sought after by some buyers.  Maybe the provision is there to ‘switch them on’, I’m not sure, hopefully a Honda tech can teach us if we really need to know :-)

  • MisterZed

    The auto isn’t $1800 extra, it’s $2300 extra. For one, the entry-level model is $27,490, not $27,790. The auto is $29,790.

    • Daniel DeGasperi

      Cheers for picking up the typo, MisterZed. Now where are my subs…

      • Mad Max

        Daniel, did Honda give any indication for a release date for the diesel version? If it was discussed, did they say if the diesel will have an auto or would be manual only? My local dealer could only say that “Honda are talking about a diesel engine”.

      • nickdl

        Have you left Wheels Daniel? Always liked your stories and occasional column.

  • Martin

    My only gripe is that front end. It is truly not appealing to me but the rest is very nice. The interior is really quite smart looking and looks well made and an appealing place to spend time in, and the rear is quite attractive, but the grill/headlight arrangement…

  • supercujo

    Rear visibility would be horrible on this thing. Does it come with a reversing camera standard?

    When will reversing cameras be standard on vehicles with terrible rearward visibility?

    • Guest

      Yes it does have a reversing camera standard but the Rear Visibility is actually no worse than any other of the SUVs out there.

  • Vanders

    For some reason Honda have removed the 12v power socket from the rear cargo area.  If you want to plug in your car fridge, you have run a line from the front sockets. I wonder how much they saved by doing this?  Not a deal breaker but a strange omission nonetheless.

  • terri7

    Looks like it is well worth a good look and drive. Impressive storage and luggage space as well as passenger room.
    Superior to the CX5 that we drove in these areas at least: rear seat vents, cabin storage places, rear cargo capacity, instrumentation, interior trim, classy looks and finish.
    I so wanted to like the Mazda, but the all black and poorly designed interior, no rear vents and a few other things put us both off it.
    The CR-V looks to have a far more useful and better designed interior. Not convinced on the rear styling, will have to see an actual car to judge.
    Fuel consumption has not been a strong point of the CR-V; this one is rated at 12l/100k urban on their brochure. Our Ford Territory is doing an average of 12.5, so almost the same. Curious.

    • Hehe

      I agree on all the above but for the interior trim. Try the door panels. Feels like its from a sub$20k car. Some Ofmthe panels, especially in areas not normally seen by people, are misaligned.

  • PS

    I just checked Mazda CX-5…. and then I double checked…. the Honda CR-V is actually cheaper by   around 1-1.5k! That’s gotta be a first for Honda! Since the CR-V diesel is not yet here, I can’t really compare it to the CX-5 Diesel, but a CX-5 with that engine choice cost more than 40k!!!

    I think when it comes to signing the paper and paying that money, CR-V would have a better case. Don’t stuff up the pricing then maybe, maybe people will start buying Honda again.

    • MisterZed

      Not really. The CR-V 2.0L auto is $29,790, while the CX-5 2.0L auto is $29,880. So we’re talking a $90 difference.

      • PS

        Nah, according to Mazda Website a Manual FWD Maxx is $31,396. Honda 2WD VTI is $29,990. Both are VIC pricing, on road cost, and based on cheapest model for both range. Which state and did you include on road cost too?

        • MisterZed

          List price is the only thing you can really compare. “On road” cost is whatever cost you negotiate with the dealer. It’s going to be different for everyone.

          • PS

            well, we can’t really compare on the unknown here mate. negotiation is at the discretion of every transaction and will differ in each case so you can’t really rely on it.

          • AP

            Mate, driveaway price is the maximum driveaway price you will pay, of course you could negotiate a better price. But according to both manufacturer websites, the Honda is $1500 better off in the base 2.0L. That means the dealer has to discount the cx-5 by $1500 just to get to the cr-v driveaway price.  

      • PS

        An for auto model, the same models cost $32,290 for Honda and $33,456 for Mazda. Also, can I just say that Honda’s wheel on the base VTI model looks decent while Mazda gives you a rather ungainly looking one.

  • Matt

    the design in white looks very nice

    the interior looks nice, clean and comfortable to be in

    and it drives good.. and is priced good. i don’t think much can go wrong here

  • F1orce

    Is it built to the same standards as the Accord Euro?

    Because i swear that car has the best build quality and solid feel i have ever seen

    • Shak

      It felt like it. At the Sydney show, the models Honda had on display felt very good and typical Honda solid inside. I also have to say that it is quite the looker in person. It is one of those cars that has a lot of awkward angles in pictures, but looks very nice in person.

    • Antmindel

      I agree,the Accord Euro is just superbly built and finished.

  • terri7

    Cost cutting is the big aim these days. A little bit here, a little bit there…..

    The first thing we check is comfort and usability of the vehicle.
    Instruments and controls must be positioned correctly and easily identified. Dash gauges and readouts must be easily and quickly read. Not in small red font inside a cave!
    The interior has to please us first of all, otherwise all else doesn’t matter.

  • Antmindel

    I recently saw heaps of new CRVs in America,and its good looking,pictures do it no justice at all.

  • Latin Fish Names

    Honda is onto a winner with this car

  • Takori

    I am picking mine up tomorrow (VTi-L) and can’t wait to take the family for a drive. It is a great looking car every way you look at it and the interior is just classy. The space on the inside is very surprising for a car this size (exterior) and I don’t feel any different from my current Kluger.

    • VTiR

      Good choice! I agree, in the metal it looks great from every angle. And the interior is very classy in the VTi-L, enjoy your new car! 

      • Takori7

        Thanks mate. An excellent family car!

  • klowik

    Just the size factor will turn a lot of CX-5 potential buyers to this new Honda CRV

  • terri7

    Yes, that and a much better thought out and presented interior. To me, the CX-5 has no presence. Look at one in a car park and it doesn’t stand out.
    The CR-V seems to have more highlights in paint and trim to catch the light, and so it grabs your attention. (Not just the odd rear styling either!)

  • MisterZed

    I saw one today in white – it’s not an ugly vehicle (like the last generation was), but there is still too much grey plastic trim on the outside.

  • TG

    Trying to work out which new SUV will be the most boring out of them all, this or the new shape RAV4…?

  • terri7

     Probably the Forester. Only a mother……

  • Neil

    I’ve driven both Cx-5 and CR-V and the Honda clearly drives better, in fact ix35 drives better. Mazda engine sounds like its going to implode any minute, at idle! Sky active auto refuses to just stay in a gear, perhaps due to programming and lack of engine torque, but either way very annoying to anybody that can actually drive a car. This was on a flat road. All other areas most of these small SUVs are much the same which is fine because most prospective owners aren’t enthusiasts and if they just have $35,000 to spend its no good driving a $42,000 diesel version because its nicer to drive/ uses less fuel. Any review site that says Cx-5 is ‘top of the class’ is just incompetent.

    • Tosserblock

      thanks for the expert opinion, you obviously know more than every car reviewer thats driven it.

      • Neil

        I probably do.

      • Chrisnicho58

        Tosserblock, check out Complaints Corner which is a forum for people to vent their spleen when they’ve bought a pile of rubbish after no doubt reading a glowing review from a ‘motoring expert.’ 
        Wheels COTY 1973 Leyland P76
        Wheels COTY 1982 Holden Camira.
        Some car reviewers are very knowledgeable, others will recommend EVERY new car they review. It’s just another opinion after all and they don’t always get it right. 

    • Hehe

      I have to agree with Neil. CX-5 is a cow to drive, especially the 2.0L ones. Proof: Even Mazda is bringing out eh 2.5L version next year!

  • terri7

    I drove the petrol CX-5 on a short suburban run with the dealer, so no chance to see how it went on hills, overtaking and so on.
    It drove nicely in that situation. The stop/ start annoyed us though. We’d turn that off.
    Looking at the car as a whole, I think Mazda had to bring it to market urgently, to raise some cash, before it was really ready. Notice the imminent engine upgrade.
    There are lots of signs of either cost cutting or reduced development work. The interior is a major let down for me.

  • OSU811

    Wait to see what the all new 2013 Forester is like before buying CRV imo.!  At least it will have a proper AWD system standard with a Boxer 2.5 engine and new gearboxes.!

  • OSU811

    Also have heard rumour new Forester will be first Subaru with option of Boxer Diesel with an Auto gearbox available!

  • terri7

    And I bet THAT will be reasonably priced (not).

  • Maximark2601

    Looks much better than the old model and reasonable priced as well. However, for parents with infants or toddlers please keep in mind that the new CR-V has no Isofix anchorage points for baby car seats, this Isofix system is much safer, much easier to install than our current system and  will become mandatory in Australia soon.

  • Slimit

    A 2.4 auto VTI would be great.Maybe they will bring this out as a later update,lets hope so.

  • Marc

    The reviewer is spot on about the transmission. Drive a cx5 and it just wants to up shift too soon on light throttle making it feel sluggish. The Honda spins out a little more on light throttle making it feel far more drivable and responsive around town. The number of ratios are one thing, but if the trans is not programmed right, you can have 23 speeds, but it’s downright frustrating to drive.

  • terri7

    We drove the CX-5 petrol model, and while it drove nicely on the short suburban run, we were unable to give it a proper test. Even so, we were both disappointed with it. Expected a lot more after all the hype in the media. Released before it was ready, I think.
    Dash is a mess, some readouts hard to read, poor storage pockets, all black interior that would show every speck of dust-some of the things that put us off.

    We had a quick look at the new CR-V last week, though the dealer struggled to find one! They were able to show us the top model. Looked very appealing, great dash and instruments, nice interior, good cargo area.
    Will have a test drive about the time we drive the new Forester.
    I’m tipping that the Subie will our preference, but you never know.
    We’d like a smaller SUV, and the Forester is about right.

  • IndyRyan

    I am picking up my VTI-L tomorrow. My first SUV and i am all excited. This car was launched in Australian in Oct and was up for sale since Nov but could not get a VTI-L any sooner. Its a shame that Honda did not manage the supply properly. I would not buy another Honda in my life. Right now i am stuck as i signed the contract. I hope the car performs better and drives smooth. Good luck to all other buys. 

  • Clazer29

    Test drove the Mazda CX-5 Petrol Maxx, Mitsubishi ASX, Suzuki Grand Vitara, Nissan Dualis as well as the X-Trail and as you can see from the attached photo the Honda CR-V outdid them all. The Mazda was complete rubbish the accelerator pedal was cheap plastic and felt like a sewing machine, the sky-activ was always pushing for higher gears meaning the car was gutless at the best of times and not to mention noisy overall I returned to the dealership within about 180 seconds of driving it. The Grand Vitara was a good option as it included full 4×4 and at this price point that’s quite exciting! although on driving you could feel the AWD just dragging the car around, felt extremely weighted and underpowered also. The Dualis in short was an acceptable car at a reasonable price although to me it kind of shared the same ‘toyish’ feel the mazda possessed, cheap and ugly/confusing interior. The only other car I seriously considered purchasing was the X-Trail the model I test drove was 2.4 or 5 L Xtronic CVT it had a smooth transmission and comfortable ride which made for quite a nice package although the interior and list of standard features in addition to the extreme depreciation of X-Trails led me to look further. Finally i arrived at the honda dealership not really interested at all but decided to take the all new CR-V for a spin it shared the same qualities of the X-Trail in that its transmission was extremely nice, the list of standard features such as reversing camera, 5 star ANCAP, bluetooth, much more spacious and versatile cabin with plenty of storage and a comfortable ride led me to purchase the car that day! along with the tried and tested honda mechanics meant this car was set to be reliable as you would expect from honda and the class topping resale value meant this was the only option for me! This is just me and you may find one of the other vehicles to suit your needs better but for me its the CR-V 😉 

  • Andy Harrison

    Had a look today and can confirm 2013 CRV ISOFIX has been removed!! (it used to be there in the previous model).

    Noting the following cars have them : Hyundai ix35,  Nissan Morano and Pathfinder; Kia Sorento; Mazda CX5, VW Tiguan and the Skoda Yeti. Each of these on the outboard seats only.

    • MisterZed

      Been in the US for 3 weeks now, and have hardly seen a single new CR-V. This is surprising considering it’s been on sale here for a year already.

  • Guest

    Cant agree more with some comments above , I have driven the CRV and CX5

    The CX5 transmission is unbearable to drive not to mention the serious lack of power and noise it makes , i honestly thought it was a diesel model and was shocked when the salesperson told me it was a petrol and ths stop start is annoying..

    The CRV drove so much better yes it was not overly powerful but it felt much more refined and solid with a normal feel to the engine and transmission the ratios seem much better tuned

    The look of the CRV is much sharper in my opinion I am not a fan of the CX5 front end

  • siu_loong_bao

    I traded in a Nissan Dualis +2 Ti (Qashqai) for this. Although the Dualis was outgunned because of its smaller 2.0L engine (versus a 2.4L engine), that’s about as much as the CRV wins on the comparison. If you are shopping for a family car, check out the Dualis +2…You’ll save a heap more money for the features the Dualis has – especially the gob-smacking panoramic roof and the rear inted privacy glass as standard (not to mention the 7 seats!). If I had not owned my Dualis for 3 years, I would have stuck to the Dualis. CRV pricing is way too expensive and the styling is so outdated – maybe their designers need a lesson from the Koreans!
    I also compared the CRV to the Mitsubishi Outlander. Whilst the Outlander was an ugly duckling, it drove and felt much better than the CRV due to it’s CVT and responsive flappy paddles. The Outlander feels better built. The sound system in the Outlander rocks!

    Build quality is questionable – I have already made a complaint to Honda Australia. Doors and door chromes don’t line up, noticeable gaps in centre console (satnav unit and air vent). Rear bumper attaching point to rear panel is flimsy. Rear looks very ugly. Sluggish car. Ancient auto transmission – should be CVT!
    In terms of servicing costs, most major car brands in Australia offer capped-price servicing. Sadly, Honda does not!
    Maybe I should have considered test driving a Korean car instead…

  • siuloongbao

    We bought a MY14 VTi-L CRV a couple of months ago. We should have checked the panels and build quality before handing over our bank cheque. For a brand new car, this thing looks to be built cheaply. I am no perfectionist, but as soon as I drove it home and into my garage, I noticed:
    1. Doors and panels and rear bumper don’t align
    2. Chrome door trims don’t align
    3. Rear tail light assemblies don’t align
    4. Centre console airvent and satnav lines don’t match
    5. Alloy rims have so many balance weights stuck on them

    Don’t get me wrong, the dealer gave great service, but it was the product that let Honda down. I cannot believe all these visual “Defects” for a brand new $44k+ car. I even visited another Honda dealership to check out the CRVs on display and to my surprise – they all are like that!

    After making a complaint to Honda Aust, I was referred back to the Dealership and told not everything can be rectified but some “Defects” were within tolerance (I wonder how long Honda can hide behind that excuse). However, as a goodwill gesture, they we willing to get the Dealership’s panel beating service to rectify as much of the “Defects” as possible. The car’s been booked in to have the above matters addressed next week.

    If this is what Honda quality is about; you won’t get me back as a repeat buyer.

    If you are shopping for a CRV, make sure you check all the panels before you hand over your money.

    • terri7

      That’s a bit of a surprise. Honda had a hard time of it after some severe factory disruptions and such, and money was tight.
      I wonder if other new cars in stock have similar problems. Have you been able to check any out?

      • siuloongbao

        I checked out 4 cars from 2 dealerships. All the same…Except for the alloy rim balance weights. Some had heaps, others had 1 or 2. I took my car for the 1st month service and the guy also checked other CRVs being serviced and admitted that they were all the same with misaligned panels. What really is an eyesore is the chrome highlight trims around the door/glass – They don’t align. Really disappointed…To find this kind of manufacturing workmanship in 2013. I can understand if it was 1990….But this day and age, it’s just not acceptable.

Honda CR-V Specs

Car Details
VTi (4x4)
Body Type
New Price
Private Sale
$22,440 - $25,500
Dealer Retail
$23,310 - $27,720
Dealer Trade
$17,600 - $20,400
Engine Specifications
Engine Type
Engine Size
Max. Torque
222Nm @  4400rpm
Max. Power
140kW @  7000rpm
Pwr:Wgt Ratio
Bore & Stroke
Compression Ratio
Valve Gear
Drivetrain Specifications
Drive Type
Final Drive Ratio
Fuel Specifications
Fuel Type
Fuel Tank Capacity
Fuel Consumption (Combined)
8.7L / 100km
Weight & Measurement
Kerb Weight
Gross Vehicle Weight
Not Provided
Ground Clearance
Towing Capacity
Brake:1500  Unbrake:600
Steering & Suspension
Steering Type
Turning Circle
Front Rim Size
Rear Rim Size
Front Tyres
225/65 R17
Rear Tyres
225/65 R17
Wheel Base
Front Track
Rear Track
Front Brakes
Rear Brakes
Front Suspension
MacPherson strut, Coil Spring, Gas damper, Anti roll bar
Rear Suspension
Multi-link system, Coil Spring, Gas damper, Anti roll bar
Standard Features
Control & Handling
Vehicle Stability Control
Service Interval
6 months /  10,000 kms
36 months /  100,000 kms
VIN Plate Location
Driver Side Front Floor
Country of Origin