2009 Honda CR-V Reviews

2009 Honda CR-V SE+ 2.2 CTDI turbo diesel from UK and Ireland

Model year2009
Year of manufacture2009
First year of ownership2009
Most recent year of ownership2012
Engine and transmission 2.2 CTDI turbo diesel Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.6 / 10
Distance when acquired6 miles
Most recent distance34000 miles
Previous carSuzuki Grand Vitara

Summary:

Simply... terrible

Faults:

The brakes had started to wear out only after 2 years, and we had to replace them. Same with the windscreen wipers, and we had to replace front and back.

The front set of tyres were replaced after 2 years.

Also there was a problem with the driver's window, so that was replaced under the warranty.

General Comments:

First of all, the car was terribly made and the car was very basic, even though we paid over 20000 pounds!

The plastic and seat materials are very cheap, and could be better.

The Japanese are no longer the top car makers, as other Korean, German and American car markers are better with a more competitive price.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 9th June, 2012

10th Jun 2012, 07:55

Strange - I would expect to replace wiper blades, brake pads and tyres after two years/30,000-odd miles, and would not see this as an indicator of quality; just renewables that need replacing as a matter of routine maintenance.

I guess the whole car was a step up from your previous Grand Vitara though, which has cheaper materials, but is not as car like - perhaps the more agricultural driving experience made you drive slower and preserved your tyres and pads?

The emergency services use the CR-V extensively due (particularly as paramedic first response cars) to its longevity and quality. I have used the CR-V, new Sportage, new IX35, Freelander and the Mazda CX-7, and would put the CX-7 and CR-V as my choice of a car-like SUV.

Perhaps try a CX-7, as they are being superceded by the more Eco CX-5 and no longer imported into the UK, so the run out CX-7 diesel Sport Tech models are available new at £22k as opposed to list at £29k (10/06/12), and this would be a step up in kit and quality from the CR-V.

Just expect some running costs, e.g. tyres/pads/wipers on any car, especially an SUV! I can't see anything terrible about the CR-V, except maybe a few plastics not being Euro-soft, and it being a little squishy on fast bends.

2009 Honda CR-V 2.4 petrol from North America

Model year2009
Year of manufacture2009
First year of ownership2011
Most recent year of ownership2012
Engine and transmission 2.4 petrol Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 3 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.6 / 10
Distance when acquired59000 kilometres
Most recent distance65000 kilometres

Summary:

Great car EXCEPT it's a gas pig

Faults:

Nothing.

General Comments:

The car is great in every respect, EXCEPT that it uses far more gas than it is rated for. We are getting 17 MPG imperial in the city and 25 MPG imperial on trips. This is lousy given our last vehicle, a 2001 model Chevy Tahoe, got around 13 MPG city and 20 MPG on trips. In our opinion it should really get around 20 MPG city and 30 MPG on highway trips (this is still well below the rated fuel economy of course).

We have written to the dealer and complained, and requested a free tune up (despite the fact the car SEEMS to be running just fine).

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 7th March, 2012

20th Jun 2012, 00:46

I agree that is not very good gas mileage, especially given the fact that many people buy the CR-V trying to obtain the utility of an SUV with more car-like fuel efficiency. However, EPA gas mileage ratings are so unreliable as to be just about worthless. On the majority of vehicles, one would be lucky to get a combined fuel economy number anywhere above the MPG listed for city driving. Look up how the EPA comes up with its MPG numbers... it is anything but a science. Their system is very convoluted at best, and doesn't reflect real-world driving in any sense. The flip side of that is that sometimes you can get mileage way better than the rating, as you have probably noticed with your bigger truck on the highway.

20th Jun 2012, 16:40

I don't usually go by what the MPG sticker says. Our 2006 Honda CRV with 4WD is rated at 20 MPG City/25 MPG Highway and 22 MPG combined. In mostly city driving, it averages 25 MPG. While on long highway trips, we've gotten as much as 32 MPG.

We also own an '09 Camry that's rated at 21 MPG City and 31 MPG highway. In the city, it averages 29 MPG, and on the highway (where it is driven 95% of the time) it averages 40 MPG.

Our '06 Corolla is rated at 26 MPG city and 35 MPG highway. It is mainly used in mixed city/highway conditions and averages 38-40 MPG.

I think the biggest surprise though is our '96 Corolla. By today's standards, it's rated at 23 city and 31 highway. Even though it's 16 years old and has 205,000 miles on it, it averages 37 MPG in mixed driving. On a long highway drive we took recently, it managed an astonishing 45 MPG.

I think the EPA estimates can be used as a general guide for what you can expect for MPG from your car, but can be disregarded once you are out driving and maintaining your vehicle, however it is you drive and maintain it.

All of these EPA estimates were taken from the EPA's actual ratings for our cars at fueleconomy.gov.

Average review marks: 7.1 / 10, based on 2 reviews