Drove a 2012 CR-V today

[Hokiefyd]

Actually drove two of them. One was an AWD EX-L and the other was a FWD EX. The ride is still fairly taut and the handling is responsive. The electric power steering is seamless; you don't even know that it's not hydraulic. Road noise is nicely muted, and so is engine noise. The trick one-hand fold-and-tumble rear seats are really cool.

Powertrain response was good. The FWD one felt a tad quicker than the AWD one did. Transmission shifting was very smooth. Although I think the new ones are a touch faster than mine, they don't feel it. I think my older engine makes a little more mid-range torque than the newer engines do.

I came away impressed. I think Honda will sell a ton of these.

 

[JHZR2]

is it more squat than the old one? Looks like it from the pictures. If so, how is headroom?

Does the sound insulation effect the volume? How does cargo space look compared to the old one?

THe CRV in last gen was a bit of an odd form factor but was one heck of a utilitarian vehicle because of interior space. If that is lost then IMO there are better options.

I never thought it was much of a handling vehicle, but if it is indeed shorter, then it may do better because of lower COG, though at the expense of headroom, which would make it a non-starter for our considerations.

 

[sciphi]

Hmm, add another one to the test drive list for my mother in law.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
is it more squat than the old one? Looks like it from the pictures. If so, how is headroom?

According to specs, overall height is about 1" less, and so is the headroom inside. Overall passenger interior volume is the same as the old one though. Cargo volume is slightly larger on the new one.

 

[webfors]

I enjoyed my 2006 crv. The new ones are a major departure from that model.

 

[abycat]

Ive never been a big honda guy. I think they are a little overpriced. The older crv was a pretty well made machine. I had a buddy with one. I dont remember the year but it was an alright vehicle. He was young so he bagged on it a little. It had four wheel independant suspension with the awd model so that is a plus for sure. Never been in one and havent seen the new one but still not a big fan of the big H. To each their own i guess.

 

[tommygunn]

My wife has a 2009 that she loves and she isn't to crazy about the looks of the 2012. The 2013 should have the direct injected engine that should give another 3 mpg. I read that the new engine almost made the 2012 but was pulled at the last minute.

 

[Hokiefyd]

The interior actually feels larger in the new one. The cargo room does indeed look larger, because the top of the lift gate has been pushed back, to make it a more upright or carved-out lift gate. The lift gate on mine comes relatively far forward at the top, reducing room.

They also say that the ground clearance on the new one is reduced about 1". I did not notice any difference there. The biggest difference I noticed is the AWD one felt heavier, and the FWD one felt a little "springier". The FWD model seemed to have a little more spring in its step.

They say the 3rd generation (2007) transformed the driving experience of the CR-V in a positive way, and the 4th generation (2012) continues that improvement. From the little that I've experienced, I'd have to agree. I really enjoy driving the 3rd generation. You flick the steering wheel and it turns right now. Throw it into a corner and the balance is relatively neutral. I feel more connected to the road in mine compared to the 2012, but I also have bald(ing) tires on it, and the new ones have full depth tires, so that probably plays a part in that.

My mission was accomplished...I liked the Continental CrossContact LX tires enough on the new CR-V to solidify my purchase decision, but came away really liking the new model. I said in the "if you had to buy a new car today" thread that if mine were totalled, I'd buy a '12 with no questions asked. And although I didn't set out today to affirm THAT also, it's what ended up happening.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: tommygunn
My wife has a 2009 that she loves and she isn't to crazy about the looks of the 2012. The 2013 should have the direct injected engine that should give another 3 mpg. I read that the new engine almost made the 2012 but was pulled at the last minute.


+3 MPG??!?

That's a lot!

The CRV is on our list and my Mil's list. Our friends have an '11, and I like that I can fit well in the car equipped with a sunroof (many cars, even the new explorer, create an issue for me). Loss of 1" of headroom would take it off our list, as I'd likely not fit comfortably, which is a bummer given the 3 mpg increase would take it over 30 mpg hwy.

 

[Hokiefyd]

It's already over 30 mpg highway today. 23/31 for the FWD model. The AWD model is 22/30.

This is a large improvement over the 2011 models, which is 21/28 and 21/27 for FWD and AWD respectively.

Another "for what it's worth"...both models I drove were assembled in East Liberty, Ohio. The engines for both were made in the United States and the transmissions for both were made in Japan. The domestic content was 65%.

 

[JHZR2]

Yeah, the 28 mpg on the 11 is what I was familiar with. If it is 3 over the 31 on the fwd, that sure is great.

 

[Colt]

I looked at the '12 while in for a MPG problem check.
The '12 looks much nicer.Especially the interior.
My wife has an '11.
Great handling,solid with no rattles after 9K miles.
On the downside is power.Peppy around town but 0-60 at just under 10 seconds and weak passing gear is pretty bad.
The '12 isn't much better.In fact the extra 5 HP will not be felt at all.
The only problem that really bugs me is the MPGs have been awful from day 1 and dealer service says everything checks out fine.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Colt
The '12 isn't much better.In fact the extra 5 HP will not be felt at all.


I don't even perceive a real difference between my in-laws' 2011 and my 2008. The power increase from 166 to 180 also comes at something like 6800 rpm vs. 5600 rpm. So unless you spin it up over 6000 rpm, which I hardly ever do, there's little real world difference. And I think the 166 hp engine has a touch more low-to-mid range torque. As I noted above, the 2012 "feels" slower than my 2008, but I think that's probably due to the increased sound insulation/isolation.

The 2012 is definitely a quieter and more "refined" vehicle. I guess whether or not you like that will depend on your personality.

Originally Posted By: Colt
The only problem that really bugs me is the MPGs have been awful from day 1 and dealer service says everything checks out fine.


What is awful? My in-laws average upper-20s with theirs (but they do a fair amount of highway driving) and I average about 24 with mine.

 

[Colt]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Colt
The '12 isn't much better.In fact the extra 5 HP will not be felt at all.


I don't even perceive a real difference between my in-laws' 2011 and my 2008. The power increase from 166 to 180 also comes at something like 6800 rpm vs. 5600 rpm. So unless you spin it up over 6000 rpm, which I hardly ever do, there's little real world difference. And I think the 166 hp engine has a touch more low-to-mid range torque. As I noted above, the 2012 "feels" slower than my 2008, but I think that's probably due to the increased sound insulation/isolation.

The 2012 is definitely a quieter and more "refined" vehicle. I guess whether or not you like that will depend on your personality.

Originally Posted By: Colt
The only problem that really bugs me is the MPGs have been awful from day 1 and dealer service says everything checks out fine.


What is awful? My in-laws average upper-20s with theirs (but they do a fair amount of highway driving) and I average about 24 with mine.


True.

It probably is quieter because that has been a complaint.I changed the tires to Michelin Primacy's and the highway road noise dropped a lot.
My wife is only getting with 70/30 city and highway around 20.2 MPGs and even went under 20 one time.She isn't a pedal masher.Maybe goes up a mile or so on a 150 mile highway trip.
Winter grade gas and light warm ups hurt but still 21 with warmer weather and gas blend was bad.
All in all,the CR-V has plenty of pros over the couple of cons and I'd buy another.My wife absolutely loves it.

 

[Hokiefyd]

The Primacy isn't available in the stock size, so that could have some impact on MPG. Are you using the 235/65R17 size instead of the stock 225/65R17 size? Also, if you are using that size, are you compensating in the odometer reading for the MPG calculation? With a taller-than-stock tire size, the distance you travel is greater than the odometer will indicate.

Either way, I'm very interested to know about your tires. I'm just about to pull the trigger on a set of tires for mine, and was looking at the 235/65R17 Primacys as the next tire for our Acura. If it works that well on the CR-V also, I might consider those for this vehicle as well. They're about 0.6" taller than stock as I recall, and a fair bit wider in actual dimension.

 

[Colt]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
The Primacy isn't available in the stock size, so that could have some impact on MPG. Are you using the 235/65R17 size instead of the stock 225/65R17 size? Also, if you are using that size, are you compensating in the odometer reading for the MPG calculation? With a taller-than-stock tire size, the distance you travel is greater than the odometer will indicate.

Either way, I'm very interested to know about your tires. I'm just about to pull the trigger on a set of tires for mine, and was looking at the 235/65R17 Primacys as the next tire for our Acura. If it works that well on the CR-V also, I might consider those for this vehicle as well. They're about 0.6" taller than stock as I recall, and a fair bit wider in actual dimension.


That's the size but they're low rolling resistance so I go maybe .5 less miles per...maybe.
I had the stock conti's and the mileage was virtually the same.Always bad.
Only a 1 MPH difference faster at 65 MPH for the 235's..
.4" wider and .25" more sidewall height.
I like the Primacy's and have had them on other vehicles I've owned.All Primacy MXV4.
There's a newer Primacy MXM4 out now.
I imagine the new Primacy may even be a better tire but I don't know for sure but I'd buy 'em..
The MXV4's I've had are quiet and smooth riding.
Didn't notice the smoother ride on the CR-V really because it's a bit harsh but did notice the ride was quieter.
On the Acura they should work well assuming the MXM4' are better.
I don't think tire Rack sells the MXV4's anymore.

 

[Hokiefyd]

They (TR) still have the MXV4s. So does Sam's Club. Could you post a picture of your CR-V with the 235s? Or PM to me? I'm very interested in seeing how it looks. Thanks!

 

[Colt]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
They (TR) still have the MXV4s. So does Sam's Club. Could you post a picture of your CR-V with the 235s? Or PM to me? I'm very interested in seeing how it looks. Thanks!


That's great that the tire is available but if I were you,I'd see what the newer MXM4's are all about in reviews and such.They might be a better tire.
The MXV4's look pretty much like stock but are a bit wider.
My wife has the CR-V and she's at work and gets home when it's dark.
I'll try and take a couple of pics tomorrow morning if I don't forget and PM you.

 

[Hokiefyd]

That'd be great. I'd love to see how they look on the car.

I don't think the MXM4 is available in this size. It's mostly available in lower-profile sizes (like for your Lexus).

 

[JHZR2]

Just saw the '12 at the auto show. Major steps backward. Cargo area looks far less usable in practical terms. No more slide/recline in the back seats. Worse headroom.

Very disappointed. Went from on our list for our next car to not.

Equinox and outback blew the 12 CRV away. Last gen was our gold standard for a good size vehicle with usable dimensions, good space and decent economy. Not any more.

Bummer.