Honda CR-V review - MPG, CO2 and Running Costs
Even the most efficient CR-V is some way behind the competition, and the lack of a diesel option won’t suit all buyers
The 1.5 VTEC turbo petrol engine in the CR-V is designed with efficiency in mind. But where it performs well in the Civic hatchback, it has to deal with more weight, as well as four-wheel-drive and a CVT transmission in some models, all of which are a further drain on its overall efficiency.
The switch from NEDC testing to the WLTP measure hasn’t done the petrol engined CR-V many favours. The most efficient CR-V petrol in S trim with two-wheel drive and a manual gearbox has the best-quoted economy at 38.7mpg, some 6mpg poorer than the 44.8mpg quoted in the NEDC test. However, it doesn’t mean it’s any worse in the real world, and in fact, you’re more likely to match the 38.7mpg when driving. Emissions are 143g/km for the 2WD manual, 151g/km for the AWD manual, and 162g/km for the CVT 4x4 petrol model.
The CR-V Hybrid performs better, although a WLTP-verified best of 40.9mpg for the 2WD model and 38.7mpg for the four-wheel-drive model isn’t a patch on the most efficient diesels. However, the similarly powerful Hyundai Tucson 2.0 CRDi mild hybrid has a similar quoted economy figure. Emissions for the CR-V Hybrid are 120g/km, or up slightly to 126g/km for the 4WD version. It is important to note however that official consumption tests work in favour of hybrid vehicles as they allow much of the low-speed running to take place solely on battery power, something which could only happen for a limited distance when used in the real world.
The main benefit of the CR-V Hybrid is that it avoids the 3 per cent Benefit In Kind surcharge that similar diesel models offer. That puts it in lower BiK tax groups when compared to diesel rivals, so company car users will save cash by choosing the hybrid model.
Electric range, battery life and charge time
Honda doesn’t give an official figure for the range of the Hybrid version on electric power only, but a battery capacity of 1kWh is relatively small compared to rivals such as the Toyota RAV4, so this range is likely to be quite limited. Really the electric motor is there to supplement the petrol engine, rather than power the CR-V along by itself.
The CR-V Hybrid charges its battery by energy regeneration or via the petrol engine, so cannot be charged by plugging into a charging point.
Insurance groups for the Honda CR-V range from 22E for the entry-level two-wheel-drive Hybrid to 24E for the S 1.5 VTEC manual two-wheel-drive and up to 25E for the most expensive Hybrid SR model with four-wheel-drive. This is somewhat higher than rivals such as the Skoda Karoq in group 15 and the Peugeot 3008, which goes as low as 11. A wide range of safety systems both standard and available as an option help to keep insurance costs down, however.
Honda residual values are competitive if not exceptional, and the CR-V is expected to have a retained value of 37% after three years. That puts it slightly behind cars like the Volkswagen
In this review
- 1VerdictUpdated Honda CR-V is more luxurious and just as practical as before, but has no diesel option and thirsty petrol engines.
- 2Engines, performance and driveTurbo engines have to work hard. Hybrid is smooth and quiet, but only slightly more economical
- 3MPG, CO2 and Running Costs - currently readingEven the most efficient CR-V is some way behind the competition, and the lack of a diesel option won’t suit all buyers
- 4Interior, design and technologyImpressive interior quality, but the exterior design is inoffensive and unlikely to catch the eye
- 5Practicality, comfort and boot spaceThe added practicality of optional seven seats means the CR-V is an ideal family car
- 6Reliability and SafetyA high level of safety equipment is standard, and Honda’s impressive reliability is expected to continue
- 7Long-term testRevisited: our man’s family liked his Honda so much, they bought two