QOTD: Was The First Honda CR-V The Best Honda CR-V?
Honda Canada delivered a 2017 Honda CR-V Touring to my driveway less than 100 hours ago.
It is, in so many ways, an exemplary means of transporting one’s family: surprisingly efficient, sufficiently powerful, wonderfully spacious, and undeniably refined.
But it’s not pretty.
Of course, merging some of Honda’s recent miscues with the apparently desperate need across the industry to make SUVs look angry won’t make the all-new, fifth-generation Honda CR-V unpopular. January 2017, the new CR-V’s first full month on sale in America, was the nameplate’s best-ever January. Last month served as a successful follow-up to a 2016 calendar year in which CR-V sales climbed to an all-time record high of 357,335 units, enough to make the CR-V America’s best-selling SUV/crossover for a fifth consecutive year.
You get the sense Honda might know the first CR-V (1997-2001) was simplistic, handsome, Honda crossover design at its best. In a Super Bowl 50 commercial chock full of A-list celebs (Amy Adams, Magic Johnson, Missy Elliott, Robert Redford, and others), the 1997 Honda CR-V makes a cameo appearance, too.
Sure, it was obvious that the CR-V wasn’t a rugged body-on-frame SUV, the kind of traditional SUV that still reigned supreme twenty years ago. But it was boxy, it wasn’t overly weighed down by cladding, and the spare tire was out on the back where it belonged. You might need it when crossing the Gobi Desert.
Honda attempted to smooth off some edges with the second CR-V go-round, but it arguably was not a successful effort. The third CR-V (2007-2011) had a nicely arching roofline. The departing fourth-generation CR-V was by no means a stylistic homerun, but it didn’t get all up in your face like the new one.
“Best” can obviously mean different things to different people. Objectively, each of the 2017 Honda CR-V’s 184 horses must tote around 26-percent less weight. Yet fuel consumption is down between 22 and 28 percent, depending on engine choice. The new CR-V provides 32 percent more cargo capacity despite having grown only three inches longer.
But imagine if the fifth CR-V was as honestly charming as the first CR-V. Then we wouldn’t be forced into having this debate: was the first Honda CR-V the best Honda CR-V?
Timothy Cain is the founder of GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures. Follow on Twitter @goodcarbadcar and on Facebook.
More by Timothy Cain
Comments
Join the conversation
I haven't spent enough time in any besides a 4th gen to really form an opinion, but I'd just like to say kudos to Honda for keeping it exactly the same dimensions (okay, /almost/ exactly) for the first four generations.
The 2nd generation is best. The engine gained 15 HP and a timing chain. A 5 speed manual was available with AWD. It has modern safety equipment like stability control and side curtain airbags, minus unnecessary electronic gimmicks like a back-up camera because there is actual visibility out of the side and rear windows. It's big on the inside but small on the outside. The utilitarian styling looked slightly dated in 2005 when we bought ours and it still looks slightly dated, but not hideously unfashionable. Ours now has 150,000 miles and the only non-routine items replaced have been a knock sensor and the recalled Takata airbags. It is still on its original clutch and CV axles. Every item still works including the sunroof, A/C, tape deck and 6 disc changer. It has slogged through 12 road-salted winters and there is still no corrosion on the underside. I can't say the same for my Toyota Tacoma that has half the miles on the odometer.