2012 Honda CR-V Long Term Road Test

Comments

• stovt001_ Member Posts: 799

  February 2013

  There's a lot to be said for the humble NA 4 cyl, seeing how the vaunted turbocharged downsized 4 cyls are falling flat on their face in real world fuel economy.
  
  At the same time, that is a little disappointing to see only 25 MPG, as that's what we average in our V6 powered 2004 Taurus wagon, which has about as much utility as the CR-V.

  0
• duck87 Member Posts: 649

  February 2013

  The turbo 4's aren't so much falling flat on their face compared to NA 4-bangers; it's against the V6s where you're really seeing the difference. The Accord and Camry are rocketships (do you REALLY need 270+ hp in a midsize sedan?), and yet the fuel economy of these cars are actually really good- for many people it's only a few mpg difference compared to the NA 4-bangers.
  
  Which goes back to the complaint about the CR-V not having that option

  0
• subytrojan_2 Member Posts: 79

  February 2013

  Nice write-up, Brent!
  
  Honda CR-V – What Jack Bauer drives when he's not saving the country.

  0