The proverbial feathers were well and truly ruffled by my crossover-contempt editorial on TTAC today, but it wasn’t until I took some time to read what else the site has featured irecently that I came across the One Fact(oid) To Rule Them All.
Tim Cain’s hit piece on the HR-V, published yesterday, contains this fascinating snippet:
In our week-long tests, a CR-V Touring AWD on winter tires achieved 23.8 miles per gallon on the U.S. scale during a cold week at the end of January 2015. Almost exactly one year later, the HR-V EX-L Navi AWD did 23.5 mpg on all-season tires.
Well, that is, uh, fucking horrible! My lifetime average MPG in my Accord Coupe — a car that has literally TWICE THE POWER of the HR-V and is substantially larger — is 24.7 MPG. In the past thousand miles, with winter blend fuel and no freeway trips of any note, I’ve averaged 24.3.
Keep in mind, that’s not the mileage that the average driver could expect to see from a V-6 Accord. It’s the mileage that I get while beating the piss out of the thing, running it to redline repeatedly, chirpin’ in second and third, rarely dipping below 80mph on any limited-access road. When I consciously drive it for economy, short-shifting and keeping speeds reasonable, I’ve seen as much as 31.4 mpg over long trips and 27.2 in city driving. Of course, versions of this car with a four-cylinder and CVT can average 34-35 mpg in daily use, but let’s just stick to the car that runs a 13.9@101 compared to the HR-V’s 17.4@82.
The Accord weighs 3,397 pounds against the HR-V’s 3,109, has an underrated 270hp (more like 260 at the wheels, which would indicate 295-305 at the crank) against the 141-hp 1.8L four in the HR-V, and is a full twenty inches longer. So what’s going on? Only this: the unnecessary “features” of crossover body profile and small-car AWD might satisfy customers, but they are criminally inefficient.
Would-be HR-V purchasers should know that Honda made a better HR-V about fifteen years ago. It was faster, roomier, and far more efficient. Do we have a picture? Yes we do.
There’s one on eBay for under five grand. You can probably get 100,000 more miles out of it before parting it out for two or three grand.
Don’t say I never did nothing for you. And stay away from crossovers, you hear?
Reduce our dependence on foreign oil, save the planet, drive a coupe or sedan?
Seriously though, my wife’s 2014 Pathfinder gets better mileage than the CRV and HRV, so does my 2008 335i.
ha!! I was seriously considering a CRV or RAV4 as my next vehicle, because I like the “functionality” & can tow a dirt bike trailer with it. Plus you are higher up and get a better view of traffic than a car.
I think people loathe minivans and want something just as functional, that is sportier. Thus the crossover, which probably handles better and is more urban suited than a full sized truck? I suspect minivan sales have declined as crossovers have risen (?)
I don’t know if I could ever go back to a coupe, after owning a wagon & a matrix
Honda Accord V6 wagon FTW…come on Honda, make it so!!
I’d pay $35,000, no questions asked, for a 2017 Accord V-6 wagon six-speed EX-L.
I would buy one of those in a heartbeat. That car would make me so happy.
Come on Honda, I have a high beacon score and a good trade-in that your dealer can make money on!
I would settle for a V6 manual 4 door Accord though.
I really, really wanted a Mazda 6 wagon for family duty but of course they won’t sell it stateside.
Instead we played VAG Russian Roulette and bought a GSW TSI.
This. 150%.
It must be nice to be so rich .
-Nate
My ZL1 has a lifetime average of 16.42 MPG, despite weighing a half-fuckton more than the HR-V and making a bit more power. I don’t know what this means, other than the Honda’s ability to do merely 50% better than a huge dumb musclecar would seem to indicate a complete mission failure.
Jesus CHRIST. Yeah. I read through some of that. Jimmies rustled. Hey yeah so I went ahead and bought myself one of them there Accord Coupes. My two-week review? I’m probably gonna lose my license in the fucking thing.
DW,
I’m going to defend my brother. The conflict of interest, if it exists, is beyond trivial. He’s in the training business. He’s done that job, or one like it, for business entities ranging from wireless-phone providers to office-equipment companies. His current gig is with Trader. But I can tell you that there’s no overlap between what he does during the day and what he does for TTAC or anhybody else.
In fact, your previous comments that he’s shilling for Ford run directly counter to the idea that he’s shilling somehow for Trader. After all, Trader is absolutely OEM-neutral and works with dealerships. Either he’s a Ford shill, in which case he’s not serving Trader’s interest, or he’s a Trader shill, which would mean that he’d have to take the “everything is awesome” line regarding new cars and recommend all of them equally.
Furthermore, he’s not actually in a position to throw business to his employer. Nobody is going to choose AutoTrader as their dealership advertising provider of choice based on anything he’s ever written. Trader’s customers are dealers, not individuals.
You can make a much bigger case for conflict of interest with journo-to-OEM shenanigans like Mark Gillies to VW or our own Derek Kreindler to Hyundai or Joe LaMuralgia or whatever his name is to GM. Alternately, what about Steve Lang basically promoting his buy-here-pay-here lot on TTAC for years, or Michael Karesh’s endless links to TrueDelta? Those were conflicts of interest; Lang couldn’t be truthful about the auto business because he profited directly from people having an unrealistic view of his dealership, and Karesh’s reviews were essentially advertisements, which is why neither Bertel nor I actually paid him.
Jack, you have many critics (and friends).
I can honestly say that you’ve eloquently & efficiently stated facts about Mark and the extent of his ties to the automotive industry that I was previously unaware of, and that I believe you.
I mistakenly thought his ties were of a different nature and of the kind that would prompt certain biases that would bleed into his writings on TTAC.
I sincerely apologize to Mark and will never cast that net again.
Having actually briefly met said brother, and working in automotive, I’ll back up what Jack says above, it’s readily apparent when you talk to the person in question.
Which begs the question, and I see this in many facets of the industry, how can you come to a conclusion with minimal facts and an incomplete picture? Whether its about a person or a car that you’ve read about but haven’t actually sat in or driven. That sort of crap drives 80% of the opinions and misconceptions in automotive.
As an expert in the area of conflict of interest in the automobile business, I agree 100%, Jack.
By the way, it would be nice if TTAC did institute a disclosure policy for all the reasons/examples (and I’m sure the many more existant) you cited, Jack.
There’s been a bit of a revolving door between the publishing industry and the auto industry for decades, but then cars aren’t the only industry that hires people who can write. Plenty of writers have done communications in the private sector. Elmore Leonard wrote ad copy by day.
Pete DeLorenzo still works on a consulting basis for car companies. Bob Lutz put a bunch of car writers on GM’s payroll as sort of a kitchen cabinet.
As long as there’s transparency, I don’t see an ethical issue.
For a lot of people, they’d rather be making product decisions than writing about them.
If a car company or related business offered me the right salary and benefits? Depending on the company, I’d certainly consider it.
Just disclose it prominently.
American business, politics, sports, entertainment, JOURNALISM (joke that it is), and on and on lacks appropriately dosed, frequent enough PROMINENT disclosure.
Paid shills, prostitutes & hacks are “informing” a largely unsuspecting audience.
Friends don’t let friends buy CUVs. I know the market rules and the customer’s always right and all that but honestly the popularity of these things mystifies me.
If you’re my “friend” and you think you can tell me what kind of car to buy, you’ll soon find yourself no longer my friend.
I love those Civic Si hatchbacks, wish I had bought one instead of a lemony Mazda 3. Live and learn. My wife’s Accord EXL sedan is 3.5 years old with 50k miles, nearly perfect with replacing only front pads and rotors, and now she wants a big Honda hatchback (Pilot). I’d rather her waste fuel in a 4Runner, at least that would get us around the Idaho backcountry. But I’d rather keep the Accord until they sell an Accord wagon.
Sounds like we’re lemmings but hell, I just want something that works for us and is cheaper than the money I’m putting out for private school (again, we’re in Idaho).
My wife lives her 2011 Pilot. No facts were going to sway her from getting it. I just avoid driving it whenever possible. Happy wife, happy life.
My mother went from 4Runner to a Pilot. I miss the impervious-to-the-elements character of the 4R but there is no question that the Pilot is more efficient, maneuverable, and real-world comfortable. It was clearly superior to the unibodies we cross shopped as well, with the possible exception of the JGC, and a weekend at Sergio’s ski villa wouldn’t sell my folks another Chrysler after my dad’s Vision tSI debacle. As motorized boxes go, it’s a good option, not to be feared.
I drive a little more conservatively than Jack does — as who doesn’t? — but I am becoming persuaded that acting as though you’re utterly indifferent to MPG produces better real-world results. EPA, applying 2008 fudge factors, rates my sled (2000 Infiniti I30, 3.0-liter V6, 227 hp, 3342 lb, fairly dumb Jatco 4-speed slushbox) at 17/25; literally the worst tank I’ve ever had was a shade over 19, and that was in the dead of winter.
I bought an Accord V6 sedan, which my wife drives, because of reviews from Alex L. Dykes and on Edmunds.com. It does seem to be a bit faster than many other cars, on the road.
I never understood the elongated hoods of 1970’s cars-when “cab forward” became the norm, it seemed so obvious… Thanks for the explanation!
Alex Dykes has yet to meet a motorized vehicle that he wouldn’t take out to a gourmet dinner & dry hump throughout the night.
Yikes.
“My lifetime average MPG in my Accord Coupe — a car that has literally TWICE THE POWER of the HR-V and is substantially larger — is 24.7 MPG”
If you’re taking this out of the trip computer, it’s not a lifetime average. They’re usually programmed on a rolling average of 500 miles.
As for the rolling average on my ’16 300S AWD, it can regularly hit 25 mpg on my mixed commute and was 29.3 on my latest trip of about 800mi. It also finishes mid pack in an off-road rally cross ice race class full of WRXes. It’s a shame people care about good vehicles less than ever, mais que sera, sera.
I take that back, just as many people as ever care about good cars and are being catered to better than ever. The shame is that not everyone shares our preferences. 😉
Somebody has to be the pincushion here. I’ll volunteer. I bought a 2006 Ridgeline because I needed to tow my race car. (Within months my company got a Renegade 5-car hauler and I haven’t towed since, but that’s another story.) At 10 years and 195K miles, the Ridgeline runs like a brand-new truck, but that too is tangential.
Here’s the thing: You get used to sitting up high, and here in New England, the there-when-you-need-it AWD is nice too.
My take on the Ridgeline is that if it were 8 inches shorter (I’ve knocked a couple of rear bumper covers off the thing - it’s got a short nose and a long tail) and got 20mpg instead of 17, I would drive nothing else. As it stands, whenever the damn truck finally wears out, I’ll probably get … a CUV.
Sorry.
The Ridgeline is a very good truck and quite honestly, fits the needs of most folks including myself. But few buy them because of what they’re “buddies” will say. I could definitely see myself driving one, but I bike the 3 miles to downtown.
Math is hard.
AFAIK, the engine in the HRV is the same R18 which struggles to power my significantly more aerodynamic and slightly lighter Civic. I’m not at all surprised.
Sometimes installing a larger engine results in improved MPG; I recall the paradoxical higher fuel economy ratings and real world reports from owners of Chrysler’s HEMI equipped Magnum wagons compared to their V6-equipped counterparts.
Perhaps the slower piston speeds of the larger engine allows for more complete combustion at a given power level; spinning smaller engines to move that horsepower peak higher up the curve can’t help BSFC.
Correct, so I am surprised they’re not at least using the 2.0 from the new Civic. The R18 is now 10 years old and I do not believe it’s shared with anything else in the western hemisphere anymore. Maybe they had some old stock and it’ll have something else next year.
Real-world fuel economy vs. engine displacement is a weird thing. Sometimes it’s a simple as a larger engine being able to “pull” a taller gear without downshifting through a wide range of operating conditions; sometimes it gets way more complicated. Regardless of the cause, certain combinations of platform and powertrain demonstrate that big displacement does not automatically yield poor fuel economy.
Interesting .
My 32 year old tank Mercedes Coupe has 400,000 + miles on it two weeps in the fuel injection system I need to address and still gets 25 + MPG no matter how I drive it .
My Mercedes four cylinder sedan , 33 years old with 350,000 + miles on it, has low compression in one cylinder and gets 27 in town , 32 ~ 36 MPGs on the open highway fully loaded up .
I thought folks cared about fuel economy , apparently not .
Those goofy tall and roomy vehicles have their place ~ I love my old pickup truck and yesterday rode in the back of a Nissan Cube , the driver was humming Circus music the entire ride but it was comfy anyway .
-Nate
I love CUVs, but this is a huge joke. People made fun of Nissan for their clunky CUVs but they do get good mpgs… except for that damn Juke(turbo FTW?). Our Note hatch on the other hand has all the room of a wagon or cuv but all the aero of a hatch. We never get below 35mpg…. ever. There was a warm week where we got 38mpg this winter. Tell me again why people buy these tiny, no room hunks of junk? With winter tires, I can go anywhere that HRV can go… assuming I don’t care about the rubber lower air dam.
When looking for a new car for the wife we cross shopped the HR-V among others.
Both it and the new Fit were super super disappointing. The only thing they had going for them was the use of space with how the seats folded and how much interior volume there was. Both were incredibly slow, numb, noisy, hateful vehicles to drive.
With that reported mileage on top of it - I really can’t see any reason someone would actually buy one.
We more or less bought a new Mazda 3 on the spot after test driving it right after the Hondas.
Crazy how much of a difference it makes when it seems like the manufacturer actually cares about how its cars drive.
Isn’t the CUV the feminization of auto products? Also, isn’t the issue with the 4 cylinder engines and not anything else? 4 bangers blow in every car to have ever existed.
Naw, the feminization of automobiles is better represented by mandatory stability control that can’t be easily disabled.
TTAC “behind the scenes” my ass.
Great article on the whole CUV thing. You had me on women taking more active roles in purchasing, and the conveyance of safety & capability. But you lost me on the CUV as a cheaper me-too status symbol. Can’t really say anyone’s “arrived” (or even looks like they have) who drives a RAV4 or CRV.
They are simply a good appliance for family life.
But you’ve “arrived” when you’re rolling in an RX350 or ML350, much moreso in the keeping up with the joneses mindeset than you are in an E class. Let’s leave the abomination that is the es350 out of this.
“The Accord weighs 3,397 pounds against the HR-V’s 3,109, has an underrated 270hp (more like 260 at the wheels, which would indicate 295-305 at the crank) against the 141-hp 1.8L four in the HR-V, and is a full twenty inches longer.”
Jack, I’m curious, why would Honda or any other marque under rate a car in 2016? I can’t imagine it is for the insurance reasons like the muscle cars of yore. It would seem like they would be putting themselves at a marketing disadvantage towards their competitors.
I’m am heavily skeptical of using dynos to backwards calculate crank horsepower in order to support claims that a car is underrated, it makes for good Jalopnik articles but I’m more inclined to believe acceleration results. Especially ones I witness on a track were I can assess ambient conditions like track prep and Density Altitude.
That said, if a Honda Accord V6 can regularly trap 101 mph in the 1/4mile as you stated, it would seem that 278hp rating (not 270hp my OCD compelled me to check) would be about right given the 3397 curb weight. Although it is FWD in a straight line acceleration test, so I suppose I wouldn’t have too hard of a time buying that it could be rated ~10-15 hp short, but again what incentive do they have for that?
I know my post featured a heavy dose of bench racing, but my initial question still remains sincere, why would any modern manufacturer underrate their car in 2016?
This one’s easy.
Honda has just one “big motor” — the 3.5L. It has to serve everywhere from the MDX to the Odyssey to the Accord to the RLX. There’s no more 3.7 variant to distinguish the high-dollar stuff like there used to be.
That same EarthDreams V-6 is rated anywhere from 278hp (Accord) to 310hp (RLX) but nobody believes there’s any real difference in the motors.
With the exception of the J35Y3 fitted to manual-transmission Accords, which does without cylinder deactivation and tends to do superstar stuff on dynos compared to the autos (which dyno 230-240).
Thanks, that makes total sense especially since that is the only 3.5L and largest displacement motor in Honda’s current production. Almost blindingly obvious in retrospect, but I didn’t know Honda only had the one 3.5L V6.
The Japanese automakers have a long history of under-rating engines. There used to be a “gentlemens’ agreement” between them to not publish horsepower ratings for any of their cars higher than 280PS (276 hp.)
They still do it, too. the 5.0 liter V12 in the Toyota Century is only rated at 280PS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Century#Second_generation
My ass.
As far as the Honda Civic Si, I am still driving one of these:
http://zombdrive.com/images/2003_toyota_matrix_wagon_xr_fq_oem_1_500.jpg
it’s got 4 doors vs the 2 on the Si, standard transmission, probably a bit more room? and similar or better gas mileage I’d wager
it’s almost the perfect car IMO
I looked at the new CRV and the Matrix appeared to have at least as much room in the back. The seats may have even folded down flatter in the Matrix
The newer ones ( and the Scion ) shaved off some room in the back for their “youth” marketing styling, with a more sloping rear window
I will have to investigate the Lexus version, which they still make I think
Based on this article I may pass on a new CRV and look for something else ( or just track down another old Matrix!! )
How can we petition Honda to make an Accord V6 wagon? I’d buy one too….that’s 3-4 of them sold just to posters in this thread 🙂
Or at least get Toyota to bring back a more functional Matrix, like the older ones
Lot of truth to that… driving back from NC, the Kia Soul 2.0L between 30 and 31 MPG, the Altima 3.5L between 28 and 29. All interstate, speed variance from 60 to 80 (we only do +5 over the speed limit).
106 horsepower for a “penalty” of 2MPG. Is it engineering or aerodynamics? Maybe a certain combination of both? Mazda can get almost 40MPG out of their new engines, in their CUV’s no less.
Oh, and while I’m thinking about it:
Jack. Where in the pantheon of Civic SI’s would you place the EP3? I’m going to make a wager and say it’s the GOAT but I’d like to hear your perspective.
The ’89 is the greatest of all time. In my opinion. Followed by the ’83 1500S. But the EP3 is legit and I wish I owned one.
I enjoyed the “crossover-contempt editorial” a great deal, and the resulting comments nearly as much. Thank you.
Sometime please explore the mentality and motivations of the CUV-defender jihad … I can’t imagine shilling for a entire market segment unless it’s some kind of bizarre paid astroturfing.