Cost of 5yr Ownership: CRV Diesel vs Gas

[minicarph]

Baka hypebeast lang sila, parang ikaw - dami mong time and effort sa pagpost paulit-ulit na ayaw mo sa CR-V. Sa totoo lang wala naman may pake sa opinion mo. [emoji23]

Anyway, even I don't think the CR-V is particularly handsome. It's not as much an eye-catcher as the Civic from outside. Although interestingly the looks have grown on me over time - similar to how I didn't find the last facelift of the Fortuner to look good at first, but eventually I warmed up to it and realized it's quite timeless.

I'd say the current Fortuner, Everest, and MU-X look better than the CR-V, but the CR-V has more appeal than the Montero and the Trailblazer.

While the exterior is a mixed bag, the interior of the CRV is superb - modern, spacious, ergonomic. Regardless of the variant, the CR-V is also well-spec'd. The best-seller, the 1.6S (1.835M), can compete with the Fort 2.4V (1.906M), Everest 2.2 Titanium (1.918M), and MU-X BluePower LS (1.845M) in terms of features - leather, LED headlamps, 6 airbags, traction control, smart key, Android Auto/Apple Carplay, cruise control, auto headlamps, dual-zone climate control and so on..

But ultimately, the main reason why the CR-V sells better than all other crossovers is that it has the good brand + diesel + 7-seater combination, all in a package that's more comfortable, easier to drive, and more refined than the current crop of PPVs. Again, it won't take the crown away from the top PPVs, but it runs away with first place among all the crossovers.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Sana labanan ng HaRi ng bagong Hyundai Santa Fe yan CRV sa pricing, I do think the upcoming Santa Fe is more elegant looking than that car.

right now. I really long for a diesel crossover na modern. Pero the CRV just wont age well in the looks dept, except at the back , I like to look at the rear of the crv diesel. Pero we cant have talikodgenic cars. Buti pa montero kahit pangit likod, nag-effort naman sila ng husto sa harap lol

[Shutterbug]

fortuner or Everest better looking than crv... Probably yes. But vs the mux? No... Crv is more handsome and classic. 😉

Baka hypebeast lang sila, parang ikaw - dami mong time and effort sa pagpost paulit-ulit na ayaw mo sa CR-V. Sa totoo lang wala naman may pake sa opinion mo. [emoji23]

Anyway, even I don't think the CR-V is particularly handsome. It's not as much an eye-catcher as the Civic from outside. Although interestingly the looks have grown on me over time - similar to how I didn't find the last facelift of the Fortuner to look good at first, but eventually I warmed up to it and realized it's quite timeless.

I'd say the current Fortuner, Everest, and MU-X look better than the CR-V, but the CR-V has more appeal than the Montero and the Trailblazer.

While the exterior is a mixed bag, the interior of the CRV is superb - modern, spacious, ergonomic. Regardless of the variant, the CR-V is also well-spec'd. The best-seller, the 1.6S (1.835M), can compete with the Fort 2.4V (1.906M), Everest 2.2 Titanium (1.918M), and MU-X BluePower LS (1.845M) in terms of features - leather, LED headlamps, 6 airbags, traction control, smart key, Android Auto/Apple Carplay, cruise control, auto headlamps, dual-zone climate control and so on..

But ultimately, the main reason why the CR-V sells better than all other crossovers is that it has the good brand + diesel + 7-seater combination, all in a package that's more comfortable, easier to drive, and more refined than the current crop of PPVs. Again, it won't take the crown away from the top PPVs, but it runs away with first place among all the crossovers.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Shutterbug]

The new sta fe is a bit futuristic looking so I don't think it will topple the crv in terms of aging gracefully.

Sana labanan ng HaRi ng bagong Hyundai Santa Fe yan CRV sa pricing, I do think the upcoming Santa Fe is more elegant looking than that car.

right now. I really long for a diesel crossover na modern. Pero the CRV just wont age well in the looks dept, except at the back , I like to look at the rear of the crv diesel. Pero we cant have talikodgenic cars. Buti pa montero kahit pangit likod, nag-effort naman sila ng husto sa harap lol

[dr. d]

beauty-wise, it's no question.
it is beautiful if the beholder says it is.

[jut703]

fortuner or Everest better looking than crv... Probably yes. But vs the mux? No... Crv is more handsome and classic. [emoji6]

I'd have the same opinion if it was the pre-BluePower MUX. That one looked cheap even compared to the gen 1 Fortuner.

But the facelifted one, though the changes were only subtle, really looks far more upscale now and I quite like how it looks.





Unfortunately the interior still doesn't come close to the CRV's.



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[StockEngine]

I'd have the same opinion if it was the pre-BluePower MUX. That one looked cheap even compared to the gen 1 Fortuner.

But the facelifted one, though the changes were only subtle, really looks far more upscale now and I quite like how it looks.





Unfortunately the interior still doesn't come close to the CRV's.



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Until Isuzu replaces that steering wheel... its a "no" for me [emoji28]

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[claytonyu]

While the 9 speed auto of the diesel sounds really good, I wouldnt really go for the diesel as of now, while its new. Honda is not known for its diesels and therefore we wouldnt know yet whether or not their diesel is reliable. Also I am not sure if a 1.6 diesel is too small for the CRV, as I hear many people say its underpowered. Haven't tried it though. For me, although I dislike the gasoline variant as well I would say that its the "safer" choice as of March 2018.

[StockEngine]

underpowered kuno [emoji28]

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[GTcervan]

Sana they placed a much larger turbodiesel engine, around 2000cc, which is almost similar to the diesel cx5 that costs around 2 million.... Wait, 2 mil for that diesel cuv pero wala namang nagrereklamo sa price tag, samantala yung cr-v ang daming nagsasabi na hindi raw ideal yung diesel variant nang dahil lang sa presyo. Lol bat ganun. 😂

[jut703]

While the 9 speed auto of the diesel sounds really good, I wouldnt really go for the diesel as of now, while its new. Honda is not known for its diesels and therefore we wouldnt know yet whether or not their diesel is reliable. Also I am not sure if a 1.6 diesel is too small for the CRV, as I hear many people say its underpowered. Haven't tried it though. For me, although I dislike the gasoline variant as well I would say that its the "safer" choice as of March 2018.

Those who say the CR-V diesel is underpowered are most likely basing from paper specs and haven't driven or don't own the CR-V diesel.

I've driven it and the drivetrain is adequate thanks to the low-end torque and clever 9-speed AT. Ask people who own the diesel (like Whistl3r) to have a more valid opinion on the CR-V diesel's performance.

We have the 2.0S and it's much thirstier than the diesel (5-8 km/L city driving vs 11-15 km/L for the diesel).

Sana they placed a much larger turbodiesel engine, around 2000cc, which is almost similar to the diesel cx5 that costs around 2 million.... Wait, 2 mil for that diesel cuv pero wala namang nagrereklamo sa price tag, samantala yung cr-v ang daming nagsasabi na hindi raw ideal yung diesel variant nang dahil lang sa presyo. Lol bat ganun. [emoji23]

Wala kasing pumapansin sa CX5 kaya wala ring bashers online. That's all noise though - what's important to look at are the sales numbers.

Between the two, di hamak na mas mabenta ang CRV diesel kaysa CX5 diesel.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Wh1stl3r]

While the 9 speed auto of the diesel sounds really good, I wouldnt really go for the diesel as of now, while its new. Honda is not known for its diesels and therefore we wouldnt know yet whether or not their diesel is reliable. Also I am not sure if a 1.6 diesel is too small for the CRV, as I hear many people say its underpowered. Haven't tried it though. For me, although I dislike the gasoline variant as well I would say that its the "safer" choice as of March 2018.

I had the same thoughts before. That it might be unreliable and underpowered. But Honda's 2.2L diesel in the last generation CR-V in other markets was pretty reliable. If you do a search on that engine's issues you'll find next to nothing and that normally means nothing bad to report. So it has been established that Honda can make durable diesel engines. The reason for downsizing to 1.6L had more to do with improving weight, FC and NVH.

As for the engine's power, it's quick enough. It can definitely keep up with most PPVs. In gear acceleration isn't that great but with the 9at it doesn't really matter. As long as you don't force it to stay in one gear for too long, it accelerates well. This is from someone who thinks a chipped last gen Navara with a 3" exhaust is just quick enough (for a pickup).

People who own one already know how frugal it is, but what's amazing (but never mentioned) about the 1.6L diesel is the weight. Having such a small displacement all aluminum engine makes for a light front end. It corners really well for a CUV with a softly sprung and (relatively) long travel suspension. I mentioned in the CR-V thread a while ago that while going up some uphill corners nearby, I left a tailgating PPV quite easily. And it never really nosedives on hard braking.

While the gas version isn't as efficient, it trumps the diesel in purchase price, maintenance cost and smoothness. The CVT is a lot smoother than the 9at which is a little bit jerky compared to even older a/t's from say Hyundais or Nissans/Jatco. The engine note of the gas version is just so much nicer compared to even this relatively quiet diesel. There's also that tiny bit more vibration that can still be felt on the steering wheel. And if you don't need 7 seats the gas variant has a lot more luggage space. Even with the 3rd row folded down on the diesel there is not a lot of space for luggage.

If I had a nit to pick it would be the steering feel at higher speeds. It's not overly soft at speed but not really tight enough either. I just prefer a tighter feel. At slow speeds you can tell the ratio is also a little slow, but with it being so light it isn't really an issue.

If you are in the market for a crossover I suggest you at least do a test drive.

[GTcervan]

Those who say the CR-V diesel is underpowered are most likely basing from paper specs and haven't driven or don't own the CR-V diesel.

I've driven it and the drivetrain is adequate thanks to the low-end torque and clever 9-speed AT. Ask people who own the diesel (like Whistl3r) to have a more valid opinion on the CR-V diesel's performance.

We have the 2.0S and it's much thirstier than the diesel (5-8 km/L city driving vs 11-15 km/L for the diesel).
Wala kasing pumapansin sa CX5 kaya wala ring bashers online. That's all noise though - what's important to look at are the sales numbers.

Between the two, di hamak na mas mabenta ang CRV diesel kaysa CX5 diesel.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Pero honestly, for a 5 seater, sobrang overpriced talaga ang skyactive-d na cx5. Ok na sana if it was larger than it currently is pero hindi eh.

Yung 2.2 is also the one that came from ford, right? Pero tuned by mazda themselves kaya mas malakas.

[StockEngine]

Pero honestly, for a 5 seater, sobrang overpriced talaga ang skyactive-d na cx5. Ok na sana if it was larger than it currently is pero hindi eh.

Yung 2.2 is also the one that came from ford, right? Pero tuned by mazda themselves kaya mas malakas.

the 2.2 is mazda in-house developed.. its not the duratorq from ford.

overpriced? now this is a niche...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[GTcervan]

the 2.2 is mazda in-house developed.. its not the duratorq from ford.

overpriced? now this is a niche...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

So it does not have the reliability issues of ford's 2.2? Well, that's nice to hear. I thought its the same powerplant for the diesel cx5 and 6.

PS Sorry it's OT.

[StockEngine]

So it does not have the reliability issues of ford's 2.2? Well, that's nice to hear. I thought its the same powerplant for the diesel cx5 and 6.

PS Sorry it's OT.

what are these reliability issue you speak off? the 2.2(385nm) on the everest doesnt have much issues. the older 2.2 (375nm) on the ranger only had turbo hose issue.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Egan101]

The CRV will please more people with its comfort-oriented ride and amenities. It does not market itself as sporty but it is a reliable people mover. That is why it sells.

If you want a CUV that drives well like a compact car, the CX5 will appeal to you. If you want out right performance and lots of AWD grip, go with the Forester XT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GTcervan]

what are these reliability issue you speak off? the 2.2(385nm) on the everest doesnt have much issues. the older 2.2 (375nm) on the ranger only had turbo hose issue.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Well, the ones that were complained in the ford ranger club in facebook. I guess it's the original 2.2 that had it indeed.

[mrstealyourgirl]

So it does not have the reliability issues of ford's 2.2? Well, that's nice to hear. I thought its the same powerplant for the diesel cx5 and 6.

PS Sorry it's OT.

Makikisingit lang po hehe.
Same ang powerplant niyan CX-5 Diesel at Mazda 6 diesel. In-house developed ng Mazda yan using “Skyactiv D” - lower-than-normal compression ratio plus twin turbo. Hehe malayo at walang connection yung 2.2 ng Ford dyan, nagkataon lang na parehas sila 2.2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GTcervan]

Makikisingit lang po hehe.
Same ang powerplant niyan CX-5 Diesel at Mazda 6 diesel. In-house developed ng Mazda yan using “Skyactiv D” - lower-than-normal compression ratio plus twin turbo. Hehe malayo at walang connection yung 2.2 ng Ford dyan, nagkataon lang na parehas sila 2.2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pero the bt50 doesn't have this engine but rather the same 2.2 of the ranger right? Anyway, the specs of the skyactiv-d is really intriguing. Its output is almost similar to the 2.2 of the santa fe.

[diehard]

I had the same thoughts before. That it might be unreliable and underpowered. But Honda's 2.2L diesel in the last generation CR-V in other markets was pretty reliable. If you do a search on that engine's issues you'll find next to nothing and that normally means nothing bad to report. So it has been established that Honda can make durable diesel engines. The reason for downsizing to 1.6L had more to do with improving weight, FC and NVH.

As for the engine's power, it's quick enough. It can definitely keep up with most PPVs. In gear acceleration isn't that great but with the 9at it doesn't really matter. As long as you don't force it to stay in one gear for too long, it accelerates well. This is from someone who thinks a chipped last gen Navara with a 3" exhaust is just quick enough (for a pickup).

People who own one already know how frugal it is, but what's amazing (but never mentioned) about the 1.6L diesel is the weight. Having such a small displacement all aluminum engine makes for a light front end. It corners really well for a CUV with a softly sprung and (relatively) long travel suspension. I mentioned in the CR-V thread a while ago that while going up some uphill corners nearby, I left a tailgating PPV quite easily. And it never really nosedives on hard braking.

While the gas version isn't as efficient, it trumps the diesel in purchase price, maintenance cost and smoothness. The CVT is a lot smoother than the 9at which is a little bit jerky compared to even older a/t's from say Hyundais or Nissans/Jatco. The engine note of the gas version is just so much nicer compared to even this relatively quiet diesel. There's also that tiny bit more vibration that can still be felt on the steering wheel. And if you don't need 7 seats the gas variant has a lot more luggage space. Even with the 3rd row folded down on the diesel there is not a lot of space for luggage.

If I had a nit to pick it would be the steering feel at higher speeds. It's not overly soft at speed but not really tight enough either. I just prefer a tighter feel. At slow speeds you can tell the ratio is also a little slow, but with it being so light it isn't really an issue.

If you are in the market for a crossover I suggest you at least do a test drive.

The Honda 1.6 i-dtec has been around since 2013 and has proven reliable in Europe for both the CRV and Civic. More problematic has been the ZF 9-speed which has given headaches not only to Honda but also to Acura and FCA in various applications. There have been a deluge of customer complaints about lurching, rough shifting and even gear disengagement. Have diesel CRV owners in this forum noticed these problems that have plagued other ZF 9 speed equipped vehicles abroad?