[Serpens]

I am going to agree the Civic Recreational - Vehicle (CR-V) is not deserving of this award. Not because I don't like Honda, but because this vehicle doesn't deserve it. Other vehicles are far superior to the CR-V in the SUV/CUV class as SUV/CUV's than this CR-V. Arguing that the CR-V is a better grocery get-er than the rest is invalid because the CUV/SUV wasn't made for grocery getting; they were made for active lifestyles like going hunting, fishing, mountain biking, camping, etc. None of which happens at a grocery store and all of which the CR-V doesn't do as well as every other SUV/CUV on the list.

Eh, maybe at the CR-V's inception that was its intended purpose. Honda knows good and well what the CR-V is used for nowadays and has adjusted the vehicle to meet that purpose.

 

[BuickGNX]

I just threw up inside my mouth. Yes, Motor Trend, My favorite toilet paper substitute.

I mean seriously, a relatively minor MCE earns SUV of the year? What a joke.

 

[sdotjoe]

Soooo...we're rewarding mediocrity now. Honda must've sent these guys to MotorTrend:

 

[Zydzik]

Um can't this same thing be said for car of the year? I hardly a doubt a Mercedes S-class and a Ford Focus are going to be cross shopped...one is for economy and the other is for pure luxury. A Ford Focus will have none of the prestige and/or capabilities as the S-class...you get the idea. Read the article and listen to their logic, it actually makes sense.

I also love the "Honda payed off MT" comments. CTS wins Car of the Year? GO CADDY YOU DESERVED IT! Something else wins "X" of the Year award? DEY BEEN PAID OFF JEB I CAN SMELL IT! [nonexistent] SUBSCRIPTION CANCELLED!

I never said anything about money so get you facts straight. If you want to respond to my comments read them first. I never said anything about Honda and or any other automaker paying for an award.

And you point is bs. All of those vehicles are uni-body constructed sedans and or coupes.

A CUV is a uni-body constructed wagon with a lift that shares 90% or more of its content with cars (referring to chassis and suspension) masquerading as a real Truck/SUV.

SUV is a Body on Frame purpose built vehicle. It is not just made to haul people from A to B. It has capabilities that CUV's will never have! Thus my argument stands.
Are all trucks -- SUV's? Yes! (Note Pickup trucks excluded even though an argument can be made that they are because super cab configuration are used as an alternative to BOF SUV's)
Are all SUV's -- Trucks? NO!

Motortrend proves my point and are really just lazy. They should have , "Of the Year" awards for each segment SUV, CUV, Sedan, Coupe, Luxury(could be all vehicles over a certain $ threshold)

 

[hrcslam]

Eh, maybe at the CR-V's inception that was its intended purpose. Honda knows good and well what the CR-V is used for nowadays and has adjusted the vehicle to meet that purpose.

Agreed. It's a poser vehicle. But that alone should remove it from competitive contention in this segment.

 

[Serpens]

I never said anything about money so get you facts straight. If you want to respond to my comments read them first. I never said anything about Honda and or any other automaker paying for an award.

And you point is bs. All of those vehicles are uni-body constructed sedans and or coupes.

A CUV is a uni-body constructed wagon with a lift that shares 90% or more of its content with cars (referring to chassis and suspension) masquerading as a real Truck/SUV.

SUV is a Body on Frame purpose built vehicle. It is not just made to haul people from A to B. It has capabilities that CUV's will never have! Thus my argument stands.
Are all trucks -- SUV's? Yes! (Note Pickup trucks excluded even though an argument can be made that they are because super cab configuration are used as an alternative to BOF SUV's)
Are all SUV's -- Trucks? NO!

Motortrend proves my point and are really just lazy. They should have , "Of the Year" awards for each segment SUV, CUV, Sedan, Coupe, Luxury(could be all vehicles over a certain $ threshold)

The paragraph break was intentional- the money comment was not intended for you, but to countless others in this thread. But thanks- I clearly read the BS in your post, hence my response.

Also, of course your argument stands because you're arbitrarily making the definition. There are plenty of vehicles that don't fit either of your descriptions at all (See original Jeep Cherokee, Mercedes GL). There's really no point in drawing the distinction because plenty of people use them for the exact same use. If you really want to keep the distinctions, then it would be fair to say these are all SUV's, but not all of them are CUV's. I wouldn't bother. Also, my sedan point wasn't BS at all. Just because there's no BOF sedans left doesn't mean crap. Please believe the Ford Crown Vic was included in "Car of the year" competitions with other sedans when it qualified in the past.

Agreed. It's a poser vehicle. But that alone should remove it from competitive contention in this segment.

Nope, not when "poser vehicles" fall under the SUV category.

 

[eaton53]

Motor Trend guy after he said "no" to a "request" from Honda to make the CR-V MTSUVOTY.

When they brought this to their second "request", he complied.

 

[hrcslam]

Nope, not when "poser vehicles" fall under the SUV category.

I disagree here. Putting on a helmet and driving a Corvette doesn't make you a race car driver anymore than lifting a wagon version of the Civic and calling it a different name makes it an SUV or remotely capable of the same (CUV). By virtue of the SUV/CUV intended purpose the CR-V only looks the part, but can hardly play it. It's the same problem the Ridgeline had, it was smaller, less capable, had less power and the same gas mileage as the Avalanche. It looked like it should compete against the Avalanche, but did everything worse.

The CR-V is no more a CUV/SUV than the Rampage was a truck.

 

[Serpens]

I disagree here. Putting on a helmet and driving a Corvette doesn't make you a race car driver anymore than lifting a wagon version of the Civic and calling it a different name makes it an SUV or remotely capable of the same (CUV). By virtue of the SUV/CUV intended purpose the CR-V only looks the part, but can hardly play it. It's the same problem the Ridgeline had, it was smaller, less capable, had less power and the same gas mileage as the Avalanche. It looked like it should compete against the Avalanche, but did everything worse.

The CR-V is no more a CUV/SUV than the Rampage was a truck.

SUV/CUV intended purpose? It can be equipped with AWD, carries people and their cargo, has plenty of cargo carrying space/people room, and has some additional ground clearance. Sounds like what the vast majority of the market is asking for in an SUV. No wonder it sells. The CR-V is no worse than a RAV-4, Mercedes GLA/GLK, BMW X3/X1, Ford Escape, etc...

 

[richmond2000]

PER wikipedia

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a "sport utility vehicle" is "a rugged automotive vehicle similar to a station wagon but built on a light-truck chassis".[1] The "SUV" term is defined as "a large vehicle that is designed to be used on rough surfaces but that is often used on city roads or highways."[2] The "SUV" acronym "is still used to describe nearly anything with available all-wheel drive and raised ground clearance."[3]

North America[edit]
There is no one definition for an SUV.[4] Most government regulations simply have categories for "off-highway vehicles," which in turn are lumped in with pickup trucks and minivans as "light trucks."[4] The auto industry has not settled on one definition.[4]

so with NO "firm definition" a CR-V is and is NOT a SUV at the same time and M/T have decided it IS and IMHO excluding the most popular sub section of "SUVs" would IMHO do a dis service and make the MAG MORE BIASED NOT less

it would be like having a sedan comparo and excluding 4 CYL sedans because traditionally a sedan had a BIG six or V8 in them

and "on paper" the CR-V offers a lot for the money with the Optional camera based "driver aids" that SUVS of classes higher do NOT offer

 

[Envoy4Life]

Those vehicles are nothing but gasohogs...The cost of those vehicles are prohibitve to most drivers. Looks like the CR-V wins on being nice, up to date, comfortable, affordable, and being frugal.

How is the MKC a gas hog? It gives you 285 HP and 300+ TQ and gets you 18 MPG in the city.

The Yukon isn't a gas hog either for its size. In fact, I'd say it's pretty frugal, considering how capable it is.

 

[Serpens]

PER wikipedia



so with NO "firm definition" a CR-V is and is NOT a SUV at the same time and M/T have decided it IS and IMHO excluding the most popular sub section of "SUVs" would IMHO do a dis service and make the MAG MORE BIASED NOT less

it would be like having a sedan comparo and excluding 4 CYL sedans because traditionally a sedan had a BIG six or V8 in them

and "on paper" the CR-V offers a lot for the money with the Optional camera based "driver aids" that SUVS of classes higher do NOT offer

Yup! That's it in a nutshell.

In any event, I think it's funny Ford's website goes through the trouble of labeling a section of their lineup "Crossovers & SUV's" and then explicitly calls the Taurus-based Explorer an SUV, something some people on here would have an issue with. Mercedes just calls them all SUV's.

 

[osbornk]

If the magazine limited SUVs to the body on frame gas hogs that purists insist are the only true ones, the choices would be limited to the Expedition, the GM triplets and maybe a couple of European vehicles. How many people are interested in a very large vehicle what costs near $50,000 or more? They put vehicles that serve a similar purpose together so people will be interested. What's wrong with comparing the Escape I had with my neighbor's new Denali. Her big SUV has never been used for anything I didn't do with my Escape. Many people like my wife will drive an Escape, CR-v, RAV4, etc. but they would never drive a Suburban, Expedition or similar vehicle. Using a Suburban or similar vehicle for everyday tasks is like using a sledge hammer to drive a tack.

 

[Zydzik]

CRV is the SUVOTY (Stupid Unimpressive Vehicle Often Tiats Yearn)

 

[Zydzik]

If the magazine limited SUVs to the body on frame gas hogs that purists insist are the only true ones, the choices would be limited to the Expedition, the GM triplets and maybe a couple of European vehicles. How many people are interested in a very large vehicle what costs near $50,000 or more? They put vehicles that serve a similar purpose together so people will be interested. What's wrong with comparing the Escape I had with my neighbor's new Denali. Her big SUV has never been used for anything I didn't do with my Escape. Many people like my wife will drive an Escape, CR-v, RAV4, etc. but they would never drive a Suburban, Expedition or similar vehicle. Using a Suburban or similar vehicle for everyday tasks is like using a sledge hammer to drive a tack.

So false, I see plenty of Women driving burbins and slades and kons, land crusiers, G wagons, all sorts of BOF's. You do not even know the market there are quite a few BOF's from multiple manufacturers.

 

[Slideways]

Any one here drive all of these vehicles back-to-back-to-back? I didn't see anyone complaining when Z/28 won Best Drivers Car or when Motor Trend posts a video showing the Camaro 1LE posting better numbers than the 2015 Mustang GT.

Bottom line, this was the opinion of the editors.

 

[Envoy4Life]

Bottom line, this was the opinion of the editors.

...which may, or may not have been influenced by something called money...

 

[GM-Joe]

MT is no longer relevant.

 

[Serpens]

MT is no longer relevant.

I actually think they're better than they used to be. Johnny lieberman is an idiot, but at least they have opinions now. And their YouTube page gets plenty of traffic so they're doing something right.

 

[Dequindre]

I actually think they're better than they used to be. Johnny lieberman is an idiot, but at least they have opinions now. And their YouTube page gets plenty of traffic so they're doing something right.

I've heard that about Lieberman from a few people. Why don't you care for him?