2008 Honda CR-V LX 2.4 from North America


Do not buy this car


Tire wear.

Cabin noise.

Seat belt retraction.

General Comments:

This is the most poorly engineered Honda I know of. The other day, I thought I would check the condition of the tires, and was shocked that the tread was almost down to the wear indicators, at 24000 km!! Most of my driving consists of the egg between the gas pedal and foot style to maximize mileage. I don't blame the tires, because I strongly suspect that the AWD is unsynchronized between the front and rear.

That is not the only problem with this car, but was the final straw that prompted me to write this review.

The rear passenger windows, when down and over 50 kmph, cause the cabin to set up a reverberation that can be painful to your eardrums. If you own one, try it yourself.

The rear left seat belt sometimes will not spool out, requiring that you play with it to get it working again. This in all fairness is something Honda could probably correct under warranty, but reflects poorly on their quality control.

If you drive on rough roads, or even paved roads where the aggregate is exposed somewhat, be prepared for a lot of cabin noise.

Lastly, fuel mileage is less than impressive at 8 to 10 litres per 100km, this is based on the driving technique mentioned above.

In summary, for the price, a very poor choice in an AWD, thank god this is a lease because I refuse to eat the cost of new tires at under 30,000 km. Honda has a stellar reputation for quality and refinement, but this model does not deserve a Honda nameplate.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 10th October, 2010

15th Sep 2011, 09:23

A couple of small problems, and you say that the car is poorly engineered? Have you not a comment about its general reliability?

Tyres: these cars usually take the softer snow-and-mud tyres. They will wear out more quickly than normal road tyres. Why don't you check the type of tyre that you have?

Fuel efficiency: I drive both town and country (in Japan), and for 15 years have averaged more than 10km per litre (say around 9 litres per 100km). However, I understand that the CRV destined for other countries may be de-tuned or have extra "pollution gear". All the same, what do you really expect from a 2 litre engine, a Prius-level 3.5 litres per 100km?

Rear window reverberation: I have owned 23 cars, and all of them had rear window reverberation. It is not just Honda!

Seat belt: Not really a big engineering problem is it?! But in many cases you just need to pull slowly because of the acceleration lock.

Road noise: I drive on gravel roads every day. The car is not noisy in my view, I have no trouble with conversation. In contrast, my friend's Mitsubishi is astonishingly noisy on gravel, so I would say in comparison the Honda is adequately quiet.

Of the 23 cars I have owned, the CRV is the absolute best in reliability. It has not had a single problem in 15 years related to its original engineering, though I had a drive shaft replaced due to stone damage; hardly Honda's fault. Honda checks and services the car every 6 months.

Overall, I am surprised that the reviewer would so strongly give a negative view of the car's quality over a few minor issues.

26th Jan 2015, 17:51

I was very angry with this review, thank you for replying.

2008 Honda CR-V Standard 2.4 petrol from Australia and New Zealand


It's a car


Carpet near backseat is showing signs of wear already (1 year use).

General Comments:

I purchased this car to lower my running costs (Landcruiser Prado Diesel).

Unfortunately, I am disappointed with the fuel economy (11L/100km) of this much smaller car (I know, it's no diesel). Service cost is quite high also.

Good stereo system.

Thai built, but still Japanese quality, so no complaints there.

Suspension is pretty hard, so be prepared for a bumpy ride. Overall driving/feel is good.

Plenty of space (even compared to Prado).

What really disappoints me with this car is the manual gearshift. It feels very jerky, to the point where I don't enjoy driving it. Honda dealership is aware of this, but all is "within specifications".

Happy with this car, in that it will likely keep getting me from A-B without hassles for the remainder of the 3 year lease, but that's all for me "just a car". Not the driving pleasure I have experienced with other cars.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 29th January, 2010

20th May 2011, 06:56

Honda's are poorly made, and these SUV's are certainly not an SUV that people would expect from its name. A lot of cabin noises and rattles, and a gear shift issue was their problem from a very early stage, and still seem to be struggling to solve this. I have faced these issues with Civics, and even the new Accord. Toyota, Mazda or Nissan would be my preference any day over them.

Cheers for the nice feedback though. They do look nice, but don't drive the way you would expect.

15th Oct 2015, 03:32

I'm looking at buying a CR-V. It would be my third Honda, currently running with a Mazda. My first one was an ED Civic, which I loved to death and then had to resuscitate. My second was a DC4 Integra... which I loved even more. Everything was perfect and built well with both cars, barring one very important thing; the gearbox. It was always in the back of my mind; the stiff changing. Toyota and Mazda make a really nice clicky gearbox, but the Hondas are lacking; feels like I'm trying to force it in against its will. I never liked it, I love everything else about both those cars, but the gear changes are such a big part of driving, that if they aren't enjoyable, then what's the point.

Honda can't make an automatic transmission to save their life apparently (I don't know, I never buy autos) so it's really irritating that we have a really nice, gorgeous (I bought early 90s, their post 1997 styling has gone from bad to worse) car with near perfect reliability, that drives smooth and sweet, but when it's time to change, grrrhhe... dammit.