Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

2012 Honda CR-V Long Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Posts: 10,112
edited September 2014 in Honda

image2012 Honda CR-V Long Term Road Test

We test out our 2012 Honda CR-V's family utility for 24 hours.

Read the full story here


Tagged:

Comments

  • 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.
  • duck87duck87 Posts: 649
    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 =)
  • Nice write-up, Brent!

    Honda CR-V – What Jack Bauer drives when he's not saving the country.
Sign In or Register to comment.