[jzchev28]

Does this Honda come with a built in barf bag? Hideous is a good way to describe the styling.

 

[johnstarnes]

I do like how the front end has a very unified coherent look, though wonder why the car won this award.....SURELY there are better SUVs out there.

 

[Slideways]

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

People keep saying that about all sorts of publications, but the truth is, if you want to make money in the auto industry, you don't write for a magazine or website. I've known plenty of the editors that make "of the year" decisions and ad revenue doesn't play into it.

 

[member12]

Seriously? They picked this frumpy turd over much more impressive redesigned or new vehicles like the Yukon, MKC, Macan, etc?

You can argue all day about if it deserves the award, but you lose all credibility when you brand the CR-V a "frumpy turd". It's a fantastic, well packaged vehicle that connects with a lot of different buyers. It is and will remain a massive success for Honda because it is a great value.

Yukon? You are dreaming. There was no way an over sized body on frame station wagon with the off road capability of a skateboard, the fuel efficiency of a full sized pickup truck, the handling of a 1990s Lincoln Town Car, and the list price of a Range Rover Sport had any chance at widespread praise by the critics. Critics like Motor Trend typically are willing to overlook one or two flaws, but not for what GM is charging for their phoned-in full sized SUVs. The GM twins offer all of the drawbacks of a body on frame SUV but very few of the benefits.

Tacky bling and dull engineering were not key criteria in their ratings.

 

[EcoBustier69]

Probably cost them a lot of advertising buys in that magazine.

Should have been:

1A: MKC
1B: Yukon
3: ?

 

[hrcslam]

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

Well then I guess the Rampage was a truck.

 

[Neanderthal]

You can argue all day about if it deserves the award, but you lose all credibility when you brand the CR-V a "frumpy turd". It's a fantastic, well packaged vehicle that connects with a lot of different buyers. It is and will remain a massive success for Honda because it is a great value.

Yukon? You are dreaming. There was no way an over sized body on frame station wagon with the off road capability of a skateboard, the fuel efficiency of a full sized pickup truck, the handling of a 1990s Lincoln Town Car, and the list price of a Range Rover Sport had any chance at widespread praise by the critics. Critics like Motor Trend typically are willing to overlook one or two flaws, but not for what GM is charging for their phoned-in full sized SUVs. The GM twins offer all of the drawbacks of a body on frame SUV but very few of the benefits.

Tacky bling and dull engineering were not key criteria in their ratings.

Great comments, 12.

This is a weird though not surprising thread.

How many of the naysayers here have driven the new, or old, CRV. OR all the competition collected for the MT competition?
Yeah, I thought so. Magazine and internet experts.

I guess we can have the debate of what an SUV is vs. the various other terms for the modern station wagon. But MT chose the wagons and MT drove them and nobody here was there driving each vehicle.

Honda's always built good cars.

I guess everyone would be happy and sleep well tonight if a GM product had won, whether it was well-known to be a POS, or an great vehicle?

Or not. Something tells me or not. :drive:

 

[Envoy4Life]

You can argue all day about if it deserves the award, but you lose all credibility when you brand the CR-V a "frumpy turd". It's a fantastic, well packaged vehicle that connects with a lot of different buyers. It is and will remain a massive success for Honda because it is a great value.

I drove a 2014 CR-V alongside the Cherokee and other competitors when my Mom was looking for a car. She ended up with a Cherokee, and she loves it. CR-V didn't wow us.

I'm sure the MCE is better, but there is no way it makes the car feel like its a completely redesigned car. I'll stand by my comment.

Yukon? You are dreaming. There was no way an over sized body on frame station wagon with the off road capability of a skateboard, the fuel efficiency of a full sized pickup truck, the handling of a 1990s Lincoln Town Car, and the list price of a Range Rover Sport had any chance at widespread praise by the critics. Critics like Motor Trend typically are willing to overlook one or two flaws, but not for what GM is charging for their phoned-in full sized SUVs. The GM twins offer all of the drawbacks of a body on frame SUV but very few of the benefits.

Tacky bling and dull engineering were not key criteria in their ratings.

I'm not arguing that the Yukon specifically should have won, but that there were better choices, Yukon included. Still we're talking about it, Yukon aces all of their criteria.

1.) Advancement in Design

Which car advanced its design further? The brand new from top-to-bottom Yukon, or the lightly retouched CR-V?

2.) Engineering Excellence

They're in different classes, so obviously they're going to feel very different, but compared to the competition, the CR-V's engineering certainly wasn't better than other CUVs it competes with, namely the Cherokee. The Yukon, on the other had, is hands down best in class in terms of engineering excellence.

3.) Performance of Intended Function

CR-V doesn't do a better job at its intended function than Cherokee and Escape. The Yukon does a better job than the Sequoia, Expedition, etc. It's just better than its competitors, while the CR-V is mudpack.

4.) Efficiency

Also apples-oranges, but they're both reasonably efficient for what they are. Both switched to DI engines, and both reaped the rewards by doing so.

5.) Safety

A draw. Both are very safe.

6.) Value

This is probably the CR-V's strongest case. Yukon is very expensive and commands a price premium over similar vehicles in its class. CR-V is a good value.

Point is, it's not a bad car per se, but there were better choices for SUVOTY, I just picked the Yukon and MKC as examples. The CR-V shouldn't have won the award.

 

[PHAT-JAY]

Comedy....they got a fat check for that.

 

[PHAT-JAY]

I think the CUV's, and SUV's shouldn't be compared to each other, they picked a CUV for SUV of the year....Makes no sense.

 

[CJH]

A SUV of the year that can't even go up a hill!!!

http://www.leftlanenews.com/swedes-test-honda-cr-vs-awd-system-with-disappointing-results-video.html

 

[Dequindre]

A SUV of the year that can't even go up a hill!!!

http://www.leftlanenews.com/swedes-test-honda-cr-vs-awd-system-with-disappointing-results-video.html

Yep, Honda was in full PR spin mode after that video was released.

 

[Serpens]

As they should be. They know their awd system is plenty effective for 99% of their consumers, despite what this simulated test shows.