Honda Cars : Autos.ca Comparison: 2013 Honda CRV VS 2013 Toyota Rav4 | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

CRV dash.

Rav4 dash.

CRV rear interior.

Rav4 rear interior.

CRV rear hatch area.

Rav4 rear hatch area.

Review by Jonathan Yarkony, photos by Jeff Wilson and Jonathan Yarkony

After several months in an Autos.ca Long-Term Test, a Test Drive last year and surviving three Comparison Tests (and winning one) we are plenty familiar with Honda’s CR-V. The Toyota RAV4, on the other hand, is new to the market just this spring and both dramatically changes from the previous generation while in some ways returns to its roots.

Both are now exclusively five-seat, four-cylinder, soft-roader crossover SUVs with optional AWD, just as they were when these nameplates were launched in the mid-nineties (okay, the RAV4 had those ridiculous two-door and convertible models, but lets just conveniently ignore those for the sake of symmetry, here). Both are also built in Canada, though that was not as significant a factor in their comparison as the fact that they have consistently battled in the sales charts, fighting for compact SUV shoppers that didn’t opt for the dominant Ford Escape. While the Escape dominates the Canadian compact SUV sales charts, the CR-V topped it in the States with over 280,000 units sold, but this year is trailing both the Escape and RAV4 in Canadian and American sales.

While we aim to have a more extensive comparison with new compact crossover offerings later this summer, we felt that these two have such a similar history and approach that we wanted to see how these traditional rivals (perhaps even ‘icons’ of the crossover breed) stacked up head to head. And despite a slight mismatch in trims, we feel that the essential qualities of each vehicle were present and accounted for, enough so that a fair and relevant evaluation can be conducted even with the varied option selections offering differences in character that serve to highlight the strengths of each vehicle and brand.

Features/Value:
We were able to book an almost identically priced RAV4 during one of the last weeks of the CR-V’s residence, although they were not nearly identically equipped. Our CR-V is essentially a base model LX with one big feature, AWD, added on, taking the price to $28,140, plus a $1,640 destination fee and $100 excise tax for a grand total of $29,880.

The RAV4 we were offered came to $29,905, the difference less than the price of a family meal at Swiss Chalet. However, it arrives at that price over the base $23,790 LE FWD (score a point for Toyota for this low base price) as the $27,000 FWD XLE, $1,170 for the nav system (plus XM satellite radio and voice command), plus $1,635 destination and $100 A/C tax landing it at $29,905. For the equivalent of the CR-V’s base price ($25,990), the RAV4 can be had with AWD.

Feature for feature, Honda at least has a slight edge in base-model equipment with an LCD display screen with radio data, voice command, driver armrest (vs a shared centre console armrest in the RAV4), a compass, heated driver and passenger seats, and a back-up camera. The RAV4 has wheel covers, which the CR-V does not.

However, in this specific comparison, the RAV4 XLE FWD bumps the speaker count to six (from four), adds a sunroof, alloy wheels, dual-zone auto climate, 6.1-inch touchscreen display, heated front seats and premium cloth, cargo cover, variable intermittent wipers and a back-up camera, as well as the aforementioned nav system upgrade that also includes XM satellite radio and voice command. Without going all the way up to XLE trim, you can get the 6 speakers, 6.1-inch touchscreen display, tinted windows, cargo cover and back-up camera as a $1,000 upgrade package on the FWD or AWD LE trim.

Without question, the RAV4 provides more features at a better price.

Design
Interior design is perhaps more subjective than feature counting, but despite Toyota’s efforts to liven up their interiors, they may have missed the mark. While I do like the essence of the layered dash and leather-stitched panel, it actually hides a row of buttons under its lip that made it hard for me to locate and reach the seat-heater switch. Everything in the CR-V is easy to reach and clearly marked, although its basic features meant there was little to control relative to the RAV4’s navigation-equipped and touchscreen-controlled infotainment system.

And then there is the quality of materials.

The RAV4 interior is by no means Lexus quality, but it is clearly better than the CR-V, which is very much an economy car in its simplicity and basic materials.

The CR-V is awash in hard plastics, while the RAV4 is updated with quality materials, although they may have added one material too many in the tacky carbon-fibre-patterned shifter gate. Oh, and having a molded plastic imitation leather stitching on the steering heel hub right next to the genuinely stitched leather dash is just wrong.

My co-tester on evaluation day, Jeff Wilson, was turned off: “CR-V’s interior design is much cleaner and simpler – I greatly prefer it. By comparison, I counted at least ten different materials, colours or textures inside the wildly over-styled RAV4.”

Sometimes, simple is best.

But exterior design is not one of those times. How does the saying go? Fortune favours the bold. The RAV4’s creased and sculpted surfaces are eye-catching and it won Jeff over: “To my eye, the RAV4 is a much more attractive rig than the bulbous, awkward-looking CRV.” While I appreciate some details on the RAV4, particularly the crisp line that wraps around the front fenders, the nose seems too pointy, and the flat ‘shelf’ of the tailgate below the rear window is ungainly (though perhaps aerodynamically functional) and I see nothing to recommend it over the CR-V’s anonymous yet less fussy design. Despite my objections, I’ll concede to the majority as I have heard many others positive comments about the RAV4’s interior and exterior design.

However, one other oddity or oversight of the RAV4’s design is the placement of the tailgate handle right below the rear window – it’s just too high, which makes it harder for anyone, but especially shorter people, to lift the tailgate. Perhaps this is a product of Toyota’s recent switch to the vertical tailgate instead of the side-hinged door, but the CR-V’s handle is conveniently located at the very bottom of the tailgate just above the bumper.

A quick note about safety: The 2013 RAV4 has yet to be rated by the IIHS or NHTSA, but we expect that it will match the CR-V’s Top Safety Pick and Five Star Overall ratings.

So, the RAV4’s design seems to make a better first impression, as does interior quality, but the CR-V is quietly a very smart package without any real marks against except dullness.

Utility
These two cars are incredibly closely matched in size and interior dimensions, so it could be a wash, but it’s not. While the RAV4 is slightly larger in every exterior dimension (but within 50 mm/a couple inches in length, width and wheelbase), the CR-V makes the most of its barely smaller footprint with better interior space in most measurements except front legroom and headroom.

The one dramatic advantage for the CR-V is in rear hip room, 1,349 mm to the RAV4’s 1,242. That 107 mm (over 4 inches) makes a difference. After testing day, I set up both my car seats in each car, and asked my wife to test the middle position. While the CR-V is tight, it is tolerable for short distances. The RAV4 did not even have sufficient space for my wife to squeeze in between the two car seats, and she is smaller than most average North American teenagers. Without car seats, the RAV4 is also a bit tighter, but still functional.

This time around, I finally found a sucker, er, I mean volunteer to perform the car-seat installation test, and this is what Jeff – also the father of a toddler – found: “Slightly easier to locate the LATCH anchor points in the CR-V than in the RAV. Plus there’s no need to remove head rests for installation in the CR-V and the backrest angle lines up for a perfectly flush mount with the car seat. Also, the rear doors of the CR-V open much wider than RAV4’s. This is especially useful for loading and unloading bulky items – like toddlers or their car seats.”

Front seat comfort for parents was good in both, but I personally preferred the softer texture of the CR-V seat fabric, and Jeff points out that the well-positioned driver’s seat armrest in the CR-V makes long distance driving more relaxed and comfortable.

The cargo areas are within 100 L of each other with seats up or down, with the RAV4 slightly more accommodating, not only in measurement but also in my “Canadian dad cargo test”. In the pictures with my hockey bag and our son’s stroller, note how the stroller had room to lie flat in the RAV4, where we have to turn it on its side in the CR-V. The RAV4 also has a cargo cover for those looking to hide their goods from prying eyes, and the floor is flush with the plastic trim above the bumper, where the CR-V has a lip, making it easier to slide heavy objects into the RAV4. However, the CR-V counters with the useful ability to drop the rear seats from the back cargo area (RAV4 requires going to each rear door opening and accessing a lever at the top of the seatback to do so).

Still the RAV4’s slightly larger cargo area isn’t enough to outweigh the more accommodating and flexible CR-V interior.

Ride
With these two vehicles in our possession, we took the opportunity to get away from the urban and suburban confines of our usual test loop and headed north, aiming for cottage country. Between gas stops, a quick wash (yes, believe it or not we washed the cars, as fruitless as that was since it started snowing and kicking up slush the minute we left the car wash), and photography, we only made about halfway to our intended destination before hitting our cutoff time. Still, we meandered through the suburban outskirts of the GTA, then traversed some horribly maintained country highways, and even found a steep gravel sideroad with a fair dusting of snow.

Out here, we had a chance to pick apart the ride of these two vehicles, and this provided one of the biggest surprises. The RAV4 was rough. The suspension was simply too firm, leading to a jittery ride, and brakes that seemed a touch grabby. Yes, the steering was sharp and the responsiveness was good, but it did not come off as sporty, just rough and twitchy. It’s like Toyota has forgotten all about the gazillions of customers who have flocked to it for that pleasant, novocaine ride and aimed to please a few overeager enthusiasts. Granted, it is better overall than the previous generation, which seemed completely lost whenever making a turn, but this seems to have taken the sportiness need too far, even going so far as to offering a ‘Sport’ button to remap transmission and throttle – I doubt that will really appease all those V6 loyalists Toyota claimed with the last RAV4.

The CR-V was a complete softy and absorbed washboard roads with minimal fuss in the cabin aside from a generous serving of noise. Everywhere else, the CR-V demonstrated supreme comfort without feeling sloppy in the corners. To go back to our first Crossover Comparison Test, in which the CR-V proved victorious, “The nearly perfect ride balance between comfort and sport is unexpected in this class of vehicle and the steering wheel sends a surprising amount of feedback to the driver.” 

And when arriving at your destination, both have a reasonable turning circle (though the RAV4’s is slightly better), and both were equipped with back-up cameras in this test, with reasonable visibility out of the side windows and the same restrictive D-pillars to work around. No real advantage here.

Almost everything about driving the CR-V feels just right, while the RAV4 seems to have confused firmness with sport. And, of course, with Honda having spent its upgrade budget on AWD, it also offered superior traction in slippery conditions (hey, if the RAV4 gets points for all its features, the CR-V deserves a nod here). We don’t doubt that the RAV4 would have equaled the CR-V for traction capability if so equipped, and even in FWD configuration, still pulled away smartly after traction control took over and meted out appropriate engine and wheel braking, further convincing me I have no need for AWD. Others may feel differently. Suit yourself.

Powertrain
Now that both the RAV4 and CR-V are on an even footing offering exclusively inline-fours, we knew this powertrain category was going to be one of the most closely contested. Could the CR-V’s 2.4L 185 hp edge out the RAV4’s 2.5L I4 making 176 hp? The RAV4 answers back with 172 lb-ft of torque and a six-speed automatic transmission with manual and sport modes to the CR-V’s 163 lb-ft and five-speed automatic.

In the brute strength department, there is little question that the RAV4 feels stronger, and making its peak torque and horsepower at lower engine speeds means it has more guts just dawdling around, and its 1,560 kg in XLE FWD trim is virtually equal to the AWD CR-V (1,554 kg). However, that is about where the advantage ends.

Both buzz irritatingly when you wind them up, both lack meaningful power, and anyone looking for such power will need to step up to a competitor with a turbo-four or V6, or be prepared to be patient when accelerating. I would classify this level of power saddled with this weight as enough, just barely. Once up to speed, of course, they are entirely adequate for moving the cars along briskly, even at GTA 400-series highway speeds.

However, we were well out of the city on 60-, 70-, and 80-limit roads, and when driving varied terrain at speeds between 60 and 110 km/h, the RAV4 was consistently confused about gear would best serve. Gradual inclines at 70 resulted in double downshifts, and yet firm prods of the pedal for passing were slow to provoke a gear change. As much as having six speeds seems a good idea on paper, the Honda five-speed was the better, smoother transmission, unless you are the rare individual that actually uses the manual mode (shifter controlled) when cruising around. 

Overall, the CR-V just felt subtly better and more natural driving down the road, the engine a little more subdued and refined, the engine, transmission, suspension and all-wheel traction working together in mechanical harmony, or perhaps simply resonating with both of us.

Fuel Efficiency
But before we conclude this comparison, we must report on fuel consumption. According to the Natural Resources Canada testing method, the Toyota RAV4 FWD is capable of 8.7 L/100 km in the city, 6.4 on the highway and 7.7 combined; factor in AWD, and it climbs to 9.1/6.8/8.0. The US EPA method suggests 9.8/7.6/9.0 for FWD and 10.7/8.1/9.4 for AWD.

The Honda CR-V, on the Canadian cycle, in LX AWD trim as equipped, is estimated at 9.2/6.6/8.0, while a more efficient FWD drivetrain would earn 9.0/6.4/7.8. US estimates peg it at 10.2/7.6/9.0 for FWD and 10.7/7.8/9.4.

These are all close enough that they will amount to a hill of beans compared to how you drive your car. Driving these two cars on the same route, at essentially the same pace and swapping drivers periodically gave us readings of 9.1 L/100 km for the FWD, six-speed automatic RAV4, while the five-speed AWD CR-V narrowly beat it, coming in at 8.9 L/100 km. 

After keeping both cars for the remainder of the week and following similar use, the gap remained with the RAV4 finishing at 9.5 and the CR-V at 9.3 (as it did over the course of an entire long-term test). On paper, this is a win for the Honda, though in reality, you wouldn’t be saving enough to buy a latte at every fill-up, and both use regular gas, so no penalties there.

But don’t trust us; a quick check of Fuelly shows that 2013 CR-V owners are managing an average of 8.9, while RAV4 users are averaging 9.4 (though this is a decidedly smaller sample group).

Conclusion
We already knew the CR-V was good going into this comparison. The previous generation RAV4 offered much value, flexibility and power, but the driving experience was questionable and between quality of materials and design, left us cold.

There is no question that this new RAV4 is better in every way, except power, with standout but polarizing looks, a fascinating interior design, and even better value and efficiency than the previous generation.

Despite interior quality that needs addressing, and somewhat plain looks, the CR-V has a thoughtful and appealing interior that shows a mastery of packaging and functionality, fulfills all the necessities that people look for in this segment, offers a near-perfect compromise of on-road manners, sufficient power, and incredible ease of use. It is by no means the features or value leader, but if you’re turned off by the higher price of entry, just remember the back-up camera and heated seats – usually cost options or part of a higher priced package.

I’ll let Jeff back me up so you don’t think it’s just because I’ve spent the past three months getting used to the CR-V:

“I would happily forgo the toys and gizmos the XLE trim provides for the driving experience of the CR-V with its AWD capabilities. Under microscopic scrutiny, the sum of all the little details simply make the CR-V more practical and enjoyable to live with day to day and is my preference of the two.”

While I myself am not so quick to dismiss the value and features of the RAV4 – I would opt for the alloy wheels and upgraded stereo of the CR-V EX over the AWD LX – the ride comfort and more refined driving experience, not to mention the more practical rear seat would also have me choose the Honda CR-V for my family. I guess that makes it unanimous: Honda CR-V is back on top again.

Pricing: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
Base Price (XLE FWD): $27,000
Options: $1,170 (Navigation)
Freight & PDI: $1,635
A/C Tax: $100
Total: $29,905

Pricing: 2013 Honda CR-V LX AWD
Base Price (LX AWD): $28,140
Options: none
Freight & PDI: $1,640
A/C Tax: $100
Total: $29,880

Competitors
Chevrolet Equinox
Ford Escape
GMC Terrain
Hyundai Tucson
Kia Sportage
Mazda CX-5
Mitsubishi Outlander
Nissan Rogue
Subaru Forester
Volkswagen Tiguan

Source;
http://www.autos.ca/car-comparisons/comparison-test-2013-honda-cr-v-lx-awd-vs-2013-toyota-rav4-xle-fwd

Honda Cars : Kelley Blue Book: Small SUVs, Big Capabilities: 2012/2013 Compact Crossover Comparison | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

By Tony Swan
Concerns about fuel prices may have tempered America's love affair with sport-utility vehicles, but it has by no means brought it to an end. Think of it as a refocusing, a renewal based on a reassessment of contemporary realities. As a consequence of these re-prioritized priorities, compact SUVs have become one of the hottest categories in a slowly reviving U.S. auto market.
We've rounded up five of the top contenders in the compact-crossover SUV class for this comparison. All are at the affordable end of the spectrum. Three are new -- the Ford Escape, Honda CR-V, and Mazda CX-5. Chevy's Equinox has been with us since the 2010 model year, while the Toyota RAV4 is the group's veteran, its current design dating to 2006. That's well beyond middle age in car years, but as one of the segment's strongest sellers the RAV4 can't be ignored.
We put the vehicles through their paces, poked, prodded, slammed doors, checked connectivity, cargo holds, front seats, back seats, fit, finish, and window stickers, debated details, argued merits, and ultimately came to a consensus.


Fifth Place: 2012 Toyota RAV4 LTD

The Toyota RAV4 has been with us since 1996, and has maintained a strong presence in the compact SUV class ever since. Although its novel semi-convertible and 3-door variants have long since disappeared, it continues to hold at least one trump card versus its many competitors -- an optional third-row seat.
The side-hinged rear door and external spare tire mount are unique to the RAV4 as well, but these distinctions are no longer perceived as positive, at least by our test crew. They're likely to disappear when this generation of the RAV4, number three, gives way to number four late this fall.
The redesign probably can't come too soon for Toyota dealers, because even after some cosmetic freshening last year, the current RAV4 is definitely showing its age. This is most apparent within, where lots of hard plastic lends a cheapish note to the interior materials, the instrumentation looks dated compared to some of the eye-pleasing displays in the new vehicles, and the nav screen isn't well shrouded, suffering from washout in bright sun as a consequence.
The seats provide reasonable comfort, though there's not much lateral support. Leather trim -- part of a $4,040 navigation option group -- enhances the interior experience, and the package also adds heating to the front seats (power adjustabile on the driver's side), plus power lumbar support. Besides the nav and seating highlights, the package also includes a power tilt/slide moonroof and a 120-volt AC power outlet.
The rear seats offer fore-aft adjustability, and the seatbacks also recline. The Toyota also boasts the top cargo capacity in this group. This generous cargo hold is a function of a design conceived to accommodate an optional third row of seating ($850), as noted earlier. It's a bragging point, but the reality of the RAV4's third row is extremely snug, making the fore-aft adjustability of the middle row a necessity, rather than a nicety.
While the RAV4 may be superannuated in some ways, its chassis rigidity still measures up well versus its newer competitors. However, Toyota has chosen to exploit this virtue in favor of smooth ride quality, rather than crisp responses. There's substantial body roll in hard cornering, and the electric power steering system confuses effort with road feel. The suspension tuning adds up to a vehicle that's reasonably comfortable, but not very engaging for the driver, despite excellent forward sightlines.
The RAV4's biggest dynamic demerit, however, lies with its powertrain -- specifically, its 4-speed automatic transmission. Toyota offers a very robust V6 engine option for this vehicle (269 horsepower, 246 lb-ft of torque) and a 5-speed automatic to go with it. But allied with the standard 2.5-liter 4-cylinder (179 horsepower, 172 lb-ft of torque) the gearing gaps make the engine work hard and loud when the driver kicks down for passing or a freeway merge.
With the exception of the Honda CR-V, most vehicles in this class offer 6-speed automatics, a plus for smooth performance and fuel economy. The 4-speed automatic underlines the fuel economy aspect. Even without 4-wheel drive, at 22 mpg city/28 highway, the RAV4's EPA fuel economy ratings are the lowest among the 4-cylinder vehicles in this group.
As noted, this RAV4 is essentially a lame duck. There's a major redesign en route, which will undoubtedly address some if not all of our reservations. However, a case can be made for acquiring the current model. Our well-equipped test vehicle -- leather, navi, power moonroof -- was competitively priced in this group at $29,090, and when the new 2013 Toyota RAV4s begin rolling into showrooms there are bound to be bargains among the remaining 2012 models.

Fourth Place: 2012 Chevrolet Equinox FWD LTZ

The Chevrolet Equinox competes in the compact category, but it's by far the biggest kid on this playground, as well as the heaviest. It's also the only vehicle in our test group to come to the starting line with a V6 engine -- 3.0 liters, 264 horsepower, 222 lb-ft of torque -- adding $1,500 to the bottom line.
As equipped, our front-drive test vehicle was EPA rated for 17 mpg city/24 highway, lowest in the test group -- it's intriguing to note that in 2013 models the V6 option is GM's even-more-powerful direct-injection 3.6-liter: 301 horsepower, 272 lb-ft of torque, with the same fuel economy ratings.
This is a strong testimonial for the efficiency of direct fuel injection, but if MPG is a top priority the best bet with the Equinox is the standard 2.4-liter 4-cylinder. Although its output -- 182 horsepower, 172 lb-ft of torque -- manages just ho-hum acceleration in a vehicle this size (curb weights can run up to two tons), its 22 mpg city/32 mpg highway ratings (20/29 with all-wheel drive) compare well with the rest of the class.
Fuel economy notwithstanding, test staff gripes with the 3.0-liter V6 had to do with performance. Considering its big edge in power, we expected a little more verve when the foot feed went floorward, but we were disappointed.
On the other hand, the standard 6-speed automatic was a typical GM Hydra-Matic unit -- smooth, responsive and equipped with a manual mode that operates via a little switch atop the shift lever. While this device is far from ideal, it does help to make the most of the engine's powerband.
Other categories on the Equinox's dynamic scorecard drew indifferent responses. The steering was criticized for heavy low-speed effort, and limited tactile information about what was going on with the front wheels. The substantial weight slowed responses in abrupt maneuvers, and the 40-foot turning circle (42 feet with 19-inch wheels) used up a lot of parking lot.
Still, ride quality was reasonably smooth, and the Equinox driver gets a better-than-average view of what's going on around the vehicle, particularly straight ahead.
While size may be a limiting factor in terms of dynamics, it does provide benefits inside. Rear-seat passengers in particular will appreciate the roomy interior, augmented by the rear seat's fore-aft adjustability. Even the center seating position is habitable for more than three blocks, something that can't be said for many 5-passenger vehicles.
However, rear seat roominess does come at the expense of some cargo space -- the Equinox is only mid-pack in this respect -- and the rear seats don't fold completely flat.
Although interior fit and finish didn't quite measure up to the Honda -- one or two trim panels that didn't quite match up, a few uneven panel gaps, some hard plastic saved from looking tacky by attractive graining -- the Equinox comes very well equipped in the LTZ trim level. The list of standard features includes power front seats, leather upholstery, heated front seats, heated power mirrors, Bluetooth connectivity, premium audio, a luggage rack, foglights, halogen projector beam headlights, and a power rear liftgate.
The V6 engine added $1,500, 18-inch chrome wheels another $1,000, red metallic paint $325, Chevy's MyLink hands-free smartphone integration $100, and GM's lane departure warning/forward collision alert system, $295 -- $3,220 in options.

The grand total: $33,250, the highest price tag in this group.

Third Place: 2013 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring

Launched earlier this year, the CX-5 represents a bold departure for Mazda, wrapped in one of the more obscure slogans in automotive marketing history: Skyactiv Technology. So what does that mean?
Basically, Mazda's new system is a total vehicle approach -- in a word, holistic -- to engineering and design, integrating all elements: engine, transmission, chassis, bodyshell, suspension, brakes, steering, everything.
The process begins with the vehicle concept and continues through design to final production signoff, and it emphasizes two basic goals: minimizing mass, maximizing mpg. This isn't exactly new -- spurred by increasingly stringent fuel economy requirements, most carmakers are headed in the same direction.
But Mazda has taken the approach another step, and the CX-5 showcases the effort. Weighing in at less than 3,200 pounds with front-wheel drive and a 6-speed automatic transmission, the CX-5 is one of the lightest vehicles in this class.
Low mass and a fuel-thrifty 2.0-liter direct-injection 4-cylinder engine add up to high EPA mpg ratings: 25 city/31 highway, best in class for an all-wheel-drive compact crossover.
Unfortunately, the new engine's thriftiness comes at the expense of power. At 155 horsepower and 150 lb-ft of torque, the CX-5's engine trails the other four in this fleet, and that was a prime factor in keeping the Mazda from a top spot on the scorecards: 0-to-60 mph in about 9.5 seconds is about as deliberate as it gets in this class.
On the other hand, fun-to-drive isn't limited to acceleration. There are other elements -- feline responses, laser-precise steering, limited body roll. The CX-5's developmental priority may have been fuel economy, but Zoom-Zoom -- it's how you say fun-to-drive at Mazda -- is very much part of the mix. Think SUV usefulness with Miata soul.
Our CX-5 tester was a Grand Touring model, which includes a lot of upscale features as standard equipment: heated leather-trimmed seats (picked out with attractive red stitching), power moonroof, leather-wrapped steering wheel with auxiliary control switches (cruise, audio, Bluetooth), dual zone auto climate control, premium audio, power front seat adjustment, and 19-inch alloy wheels.
Safety features are consistent with contemporary standards: stability control, traction control, antilock braking, blind spot monitor, and air bags galore, though a rear cross-traffic detection system is conspicuous by its absence.
Although the interior color palette ran heavily to black, the Mazda drew high marks for the quality of its interior appointments, for a high level of fit and finish, and for its sporty front seats, which provided best-in-test lateral support. There were minor demerits for the instruments -- their gray on charcoal markings are hard to read in the daylight -- as well as for a rather conservative dashboard design and one of the smaller cargo holds in the group.
On the other hand, the CX-5 emerged as one of the value leaders in this pack. Its $27,840 base price folds in a lot of standard equipment, and its $29,455 as-tested total added basically one major option -- the Grand Touring Tech Package. It includes a nav system, adaptive HID headlights with auto leveling, car alarm, and advanced keyless entry system for $1,325, certainly one of the least expensive factory nav system packages on the market.
The stylish CX-5 figures is a dark horse in the compact crossover derby, handicapped by its rather tepid acceleration, the trade for high mpg. Even so, the Mazda provides a level of dynamic response and driver engagement that's tops. And that languid 0-to-60 progress can be improved by a tenth or three by opting for a slick-shifting 6-speed manual transmission, the only manual transmission option in this group.
The manual gearbox is offered only with the basic CX-5 Sport, but it enhances driver involvement and boosts highway fuel economy to 35 mpg. If fun-to-drive is important, the CX-5 is like your childhood pal who was always ready to play.

Second Place: 2013 Ford Escape SE

Like the CX-5, the Escape is brand new for 2013, and represents a dramatic change of direction. New foundations, adapted from the front-wheel drive Ford Focus. And a decidedly new look, slick and contemporary, replacing the blocky, truckish look of the previous generation.
Also like the CX-5, the Escape's new chassis was the starting point for a very agile dynamic profile -- prompt responses in quick maneuvers, good control of body motions. The electric power steering system isn't quite as informative and precise as the Mazda's, but the driver involvement and gratification is nevertheless a plus.
However, though it's similar in size -- toward the smaller end of the compact crossover scale -- and in its contemporary good looks, the Escape has a bigger menu of choices for prospective buyers than its Mazda contemporary. For example, it offers three 4-cylinder engine options, two of them turbocharged (EcoBoost): a 2.5-liter (168 horsepower, 170 lb-ft of torque, naturally aspirated), an EcoBoost 2.0-liter (240 horsepower, 270 lb-ft), and an EcoBoost 1.6-liter (178 horsepower, 184 lb-ft).
The 1.6-liter is new to the U.S. market, and powered our Escape tester. All three engines are paired with the same 6-speed automatic transmission, but 4-wheel drive is offered only with the turbocharged versions. Like most of our test fleet, this Escape was a front-driver. And like the Equinox, an Escape equipped with the most powerful engine option is rated to tow up to 3,500 pounds.
The 1.6 didn't get rave reviews from everyone involved -- there were comments about hints of turbo lag before the engine got into the sweet spot of its powerband, and a little too much noise when it was working hard. However, the 1.6 gets good EPA fuel economy numbers -- 23 mpg city/33 highway -- and delivered generally respectable performance measured against the other contestants in this derby.
And there's always the option of the EcoBoost 2.0-liter for power mongers.
Though the Escape ranks next-to-last in this group for interior volume -- only the CX-5 has less -- that volume embraces a very attractive interior, with sporty front seats that are a match for the Mazda's and snazzy instrument and control graphics that lend splashes of electronic color to the dashboard.
There's also a surprising amount of cargo capacity -- over 34 cubic feet behind the rear seatbacks and over 68 cubic feet with the rear seats folded down. However, that rearmost cargo hold compromises rear-seat legroom a bit, and the swoopy roofline limits rear headroom, especially when the Escape is equipped with the optional Panorama double power sunroof ($1,395), present on our test vehicle.
Like all new Fords coming along these days, the Escape's secondary controls included Sync infotainment and the updated version of the MyFord Touch system, augmented by voice command. Though improved, the latter still provoked some test crew grumbling about having to jab the electronic buttons more than once to achieve the desired result, as well as a little wistful wishing for a good old-fashioned rotary knob or two.
The Escape's passive safety features are on par with the times, including plenty of airbags (front, driver's knee, side and side-curtain), and Blind Spot Information System (BLIS), which flashes a light on the side mirror when another vehicle is nearby in a parallel lane.
Base pricing for a new Escape is competitive, but injudicious option-shopping can run the tally up quite rapidly. Our SE tester, second of four trim levels (S, SE, SEL, Titanium) carried a base price of $25,895. The moonroof added $1,395, navigation system another $1,570, and a perimeter alarm system tacked on $440, for an as-tested total of $29,345, a competitive price for an attractive vehicle.
The Escape is good to look at, entertaining to drive, and attractive within. There are caveats. Though braking performance seemed strong, there were reports of slightly mushy pedal feel. Curb weights are mystifyingly high for a relatively small crossover SUV -- over 3,500 pounds for this tester, according to Ford, more than 200 pounds heftier than the CX-5 -- and ride quality can be a little too stiff on patchy pavement.
But if the Escape gives something away to the Honda CR-V in terms of refinement, it's clearly a stronger rival than ever before.

Winner: 2012 Honda CR-V EX-L Navi

With the exception of 2011, when Japan's catastrophic earthquake and Thailand flooding choked production down to a trickle, the CR-V has been the bestseller in this class for years, and often the bestseller of all SUVs, great and small. Which raises the tricky question of what's next?
Honda essentially invented the segment in 1995 with the first-generation CR-V, and subsequent generations have kept the Civic-based crossover at the front of the pack.
Introduced last fall, Honda's response to the "what's next" challenge was conservative, even cautious.  The wheelbase is unchanged at 103.1 inches -- shortest in this group -- while length and height shrink an inch, to 178.1 and 65.1, respectively.
This puts the CR-V at the small end of our test-SUV spectrum, but in typical Honda fashion its interior volume seems to belie the exterior dimensions. Basic cargo capacity -- the space behind the rear seats -- is substantial at 37 cubic feet, as is the space with the rear seats folded: 71 cubic feet. There's also plenty of passenger room, front and rear, and numerous nooks and cubbies for small-object storage, another typical Honda strong suit.
Passive safety features are top drawer -- five stars overall from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
But the interior element that immediately grabs eyeballs is the quality of the materials, the straightforward logic of the various controls, the supportive front bucket seats, and the excellent forward sightlines. Honda's old advertising tagline -- "we make it simple" -- is in evidence here. Acclimating oneself to this vehicle is as easy as getting in, starting the engine, and driving off.
Pricing makes the CR-V's many strengths even more appealing. The window sticker bottom line on our EX-L Navi tester (Honda counts navigation-equipped vehicles as separate trim levels) was $29,575. This includes pretty much everything in the CR-V inventory -- (inhale) leather upholstery and trim, navigation system with voice recognition and rear view camera, power moonroof, DVD entertainment system, heated front seats with driver-side power adjustability, Bluetooth connectivity with streaming audio, USB audio interface and Pandora connectivity, SMS text messaging, 328-watt 7-speaker premium audio, 17-inch aluminum alloy wheels (exhale).
A power rear liftgate would be a useful addition to the foregoing, as would a blind-spot warning system, a la Ford. And, of course, in real 4-season climates all-wheel drive is always welcome -- and available, for a price. But beyond that, it's hard to think of anything to add.
One of the reasons Honda is able to offer the new CR-V with attractive pricing can be found in the powertrain. The engineers have squeezed a little more thrust out of the 2.4-liter engine -- now with 185 horsepower and 163 lb-ft of torque -- but while other carmakers are embracing the efficiency of direct fuel injection, Honda has been resisting the cost.
Honda also resisted the trend to 6-speed automatic transmissions -- the CR-V retains the 5-speed automatic of the previous generation.  However, this doesn't seem to extract much of a fuel economy penalty -- at 23 mpg city/31 highway the CR-V's EPA ratings are competitive.
Similarly, the Honda's straight-line performance stacks up well versus its 6-speed rivals: 0-to-60 mph takes about 8.5 seconds.
The Honda CR-V isn't as entertaining an SUV to drive as the Ford Escape or the Mazda CX-5. The suspension tuning is softer, the new electric power steering system is novocaine numb, conveying essentially no information to the driver, and the evolutionary styling update, with its bigger rear roof pillar, creates a good-sized rear quarter blind spot.
But the CR-V's blend of smooth ride, smooth power, competitive fuel economy, outstanding assembly quality, first rate materials, quiet operation, exceptional comfort, and excellent value story trump its few soft points. Just as it trumps the rest of this field.

 Source;
http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest/small-suvs-big-capabilities-20122013-compact-crossover-comparison/

Honda Cars : Inside Line: 2013 Ford Escape vs. 2012 Honda CR-V Comparison Test | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Here's a good read comparing two very good vehicles....

Baseless Brawn vs. Principled Pragmatism

By Josh Jacquot, Senior Editor | Published Jul 16, 2012 

Let's face it: The battle for diaper-hauling supremacy is raging in America.

In a time when four-dollar-per-gallon fuel is as common as soccer moms, the crossover SUV is the vehicle of choice for many practitioners of the domestic arts. Whether it's toddler toting or simple commuting, small utility vehicles frequently pull rank over midsize sedans because of their all-weather utility, flexible cargo space and superior visibility. And since 2008, the two best-selling compact SUVs in the country have been the Ford Escape and Honda CR-V.

So if you've got diapers to haul and need new wheels to haul them, the simultaneous redesign of these two crossovers is hugely significant. Despite their common goals, the 2013 Ford Escape and 2012 Honda CR-V take very different approaches. Which approach is better? That's what we're here to find out.

Different Strategy, Same Mission
Ford's strategy for the Escape includes a choice of three different four-cylinder engines: two of them direct-injected and turbocharged and one normally aspirated, all of which are mated to a six-speed automatic transmission. They all drive the front wheels but all-wheel drive is optional. Our Escape tester was a top-of-the-line Titanium version with all-wheel drive, which comes standard with the most powerful engine, a turbocharged 2.0-liter that cranks out 231 horsepower and 270 pound-feet of torque.

Honda's CR-V follows a more traditional formula under the hood. Only one engine is available — a 2.4-liter four-cylinder that produces 185 hp and 163 lb-ft of torque. It relies on port fuel injection, atmospheric aspiration and a five-speed automatic transmission to drive the front wheels. All-wheel drive is available with every trim level and — following Honda's usual price structure — navigation is the only other option.

We tested fully loaded versions of each vehicle. With the Escape that meant $3,185 in options on top of the Titanium's base price of $32,945 for a final price of $36,130. There are no such add-ons for the CR-V, so our EX-L with navigation rang in at $30,825.

Sizing Them Up
Dimensionally it's clear these two utes are targeting the same clientele. Only 0.2 inch separates their overall length while the 2013 Ford Escape is 0.8 inch wider and 1.2 inches taller. Its 105.9-inch wheelbase is also marginally longer than the CR-V's 103.1-inch wheelbase.

Once inside, however, Honda pulls a clever switcheroo by producing more interior space from slightly smaller exterior dimensions. Partially this is thanks to the Escape's rising waistline and sloping roof line, which look great but compromise overall roominess. Despite producing additional volume, the CR-V's load-in-the-shorts styling won it few fans.

Speaking of loaded shorts, the CR-V's physics-defying interior is also better for installing rear-facing infant seats, which consume a disproportionate amount of space. With the driver seat set to accommodate a 5-foot-9-inch driver, the Escape's seatback rested against the front of an infant seat. In the CR-V there was a small space left over between the seatback and infant seat.

A quick look at each SUV's cargo area hints at what the SAE's objective measures verify: The Honda is easily the better of the two when it comes to cargo volume. Although cargo room behind the CR-V's second row is only 2.9 cubic feet more than the Escape, it measures larger in every single dimension. Drop the seats and the CR-V's advantage continues (68.1 cubic feet vs. 70.9).

Dropping those seats is significantly easier in the Honda, too. It can be accomplished from the cargo area by pulling a handle on either side. The Escape's seats fold completely flat, but the CR-V's fold flat enough to minimize the compromise in utility. Liftover heights, at 27 inches for the CR-V and 27.5 inches for the Escape, are similarly low.

Jump In, Look Around
Inside, the Ford looks more modern than the new-but-still-familiar Honda design. We found the driver seat in both amply comfortable, but the CR-V's greater sense of space is undeniable. More than one tester commented on the CR-V's roominess, while others noted the Escape's more confined interior space.

Honda's use of space remains unparalleled when it comes to small-item storage, too. There's unexpected volume in the center console that stretches the length of the CR-V's seat bottoms and is nearly as deep as the seats are tall. There's also a perfectly flat floor in the backseat, while the Escape's foot room is invaded by a center hump.

Ford regains some ground by installing center-mounted HVAC vents for the rear passengers — a comfort feature kids in back will certainly appreciate.

Feature Central
There's no ignoring the fact that the Escape's cabin reeks of genuine technological innovation, while the 2012 Honda CR-V packs its features into a familiar but dated-looking package.

Both SUVs have dual-zone climate control, front seat heaters, navigation systems with traffic data, rearview cameras and sunroofs. The Escape adds a self-parking feature, blind-spot monitoring, keyless entry/start, HID headlamps and 19-inch wheels (the CR-V has 17s).

The Escape's power-operated tailgate also opens via the key fob, a button on the liftgate or by passing your foot underneath the rear bumper when the key fob is in your pocket — a feature that is undeniably useful for perpetually full-handed mothers.

Also worth noting is the fact that the Escape's MyFord Touch user interface for the phone, climate, audio and navigation system doesn't use the infuriatingly ineffective touchpad buttons found in the larger Explorer. Both SUVs were also relatively easy to pair with our smartphone and managed to remember it every time we climbed inside.

Punch It, Mommy
It's worth noting that the 2013 Ford Escape, despite being nearly identical in size to the 2012 Honda CR-V, is 361 pounds heavier. That's a considerable difference for a small SUV, yet there's a promptness to the Escape's responses that is sorely lacking in the CR-V.

This is largely due to its significant power advantage, but gearing and transmission calibrations also play a role. Fourth and 5th gears in the CR-V are overdrive ratios and it seeks them out often to maximize mileage. Not since driving the GMC Terrain have we witnessed such a profound case of upshiftitis.

The Escape, blessed with one additional cog in its transmission and sufficiently motivational torque, is neither confused nor reluctant when its throttle is opened. It just goes. Engine braking is more easily accessible than in the Honda, which might seem like a small thing until you descend a steep hill in both. What's more, if we had to perform light towing, the Escape's 3,500-pound tow rating makes it an easy choice, as the CR-V is only rated to tow 1,500 pounds.

When it comes to objective measures of acceleration the Escape mops the floor with the CR-V. Sixty miles per hour arrives in 7.4 seconds (7.2 seconds with 1 foot of rollout as at a drag strip) in the Escape. That milestone requires 9.4 seconds (9.1 seconds with rollout) in the CR-V. The Escape's 15.5-second quarter-mile time at 87.5 mph is a full 1.3 seconds and 4.5 mph quicker than the CR-V's 16.8-second pass at 83 mph.

Both SUVs utilize electric-assist steering but the Ford's ratio is quicker, which partially explains its snappier responses. Handling tests, unsurprisingly, fell in favor of the Ford's quicker reactions. It circled the skid pad at 0.82g — significantly better than the CR-V's 0.76g. At 62 mph it also slalomed faster than the CR-V (60.7 mph). Some 124 feet were required to stop the Escape from 60 mph — 5 feet shorter than the CR-V.

Efficiency Matters
It's possible you've heard the one about there being no free lunch. It's never been truer than in the power/fuel consumption compromise we observed in this test. According to the EPA, the Escape's fuel mileage ratings (21 city/28 highway mpg) are slightly lower than the CR-V's 22 city/30 highway mpg.

Forget that for a moment, because in the real world, the world where the Escape's responsive turbocharged engine makes 107 lb-ft more torque than the Honda's engine, your mileage will vary. Ours certainly did.

During 1,328 miles of mixed driving we observed 20.5 mpg in the Escape. Driven largely on the same roads during the same period of time by the same drivers, the CR-V delivered 27.7 mpg over 1,520 miles. It's a difference that's hard to ignore.

Certainly the 231-hp Ford's advantage in response, drivability and outright speed is nice to have and we certainly enjoy its capabilities. But that kind of performance isn't mission-critical for most families. Fuel economy, however, is at the top of the list. That's probably why Ford offers two smaller, more efficient engines in the Escape, including the 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine, which Ford expects to be the crossover's volume engine. Of course with this smaller 173-hp power plant, the Escape acceleration isn't as brisk, but its fuel-efficiency ratings are more in line with the Honda's and in some cases better. Still, in this contest, the Escape was clearly out mpg'd.

The Take-Away
Here we have two very different crossover utility vehicles — one defined by what its powertrain does and one defined by what its powertrain does not do. With ample power, a modern, obedient transmission and superior handling, the 2013 Ford Escape is unquestionably the more enjoyable vehicle to drive. Its features, too, sift it out of the crossover crowd — even if you have to pay more for them. Combined, though, they're still not enough to pull off a win.

It's possible that the Escape's smaller, 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine might have reversed our decision here, but that's another test for another time.

It's not performance or features that draw most buyers to this segment. And beyond those, we're hard-pressed to find meaningful reasons to choose the Escape over the CR-V. Fuel economy and practicality are what sell small SUVs and those qualities endure prominently in the 2012 Honda CR-V. Sure, the CR-V doesn't break a lot of new ground in the segment, but it does honor the primary reasons people are drawn to small SUVs in the first place. Its combination of respectable fuel economy and a large, flexible interior is a potent one.

So if you're practicing the domestic arts, the 2012 Honda CR-V is the diaper hauler you'll likely prefer as a partner.

The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.

Source;
http://www.insideline.com/honda/cr-v/2012/2013-ford-escape-vs-2012-honda-cr-v-comparison-test.html     

Honda Cars : Cars.com Midsize SUV Shootout; 2012 Honda CRV wins.... | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

By Cars.com Staff  Cars.com

A quick reminder on the judges:

• David Thomas, managing editor, Cars.com
• Bill Jackson, senior editor, Cars.com
• Jennifer Geiger, editor, Cars.com
• Fred Meier, automotive editor, USA Today
• Brian Robinson, producer, "MotorWeek"
• Nicholas and Erin Ravelingeen, parents of two who are eager to replace their 2001 Chevrolet Tracker

Here's how the score broke down: 75% of the total was based on the experts' scores; 15% from the family's scores; and 10% was based on fuel economy. To help you make your own comparisons of these SUVs, we’ve pulled together a list of what you get for $25,000.
It was evident when the smoke cleared that all six of these compact SUVs were strong contenders, each in its own way. With a firm $25,000 price point, consumers could get many useful features, but no one SUV had all of them. The top three finishers were extremely close in scores, which is a testament to how hard it was to pick a winner in this class. If you're in the market for a compact SUV, focus on your top concerns, and certainly one of these will work for you.

No. 6 2013 Ford Escape, 693.5 Points

(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2013 Ford Escape)

What they liked: Even though the Escape came with fewer features than its competitors (our broker got us a no-frills base version, but we couldn't have gotten a different engine without topping our $25,000 maximum price), as a driving machine, it won over more than a few of our reviewers.
"The Escape's 2.5-liter feels spirited from a stop and has plenty of midrange punch," Geiger said. Jackson agreed: "The Escape excels in the vehicle dynamics category — the combination of ride, handling and acceleration — by managing to feel both composed and relaxed." Now, the new Escape ditches the pickup-truck look and feel of the previous generation, and that "unique" look (as Robinson said) appealed to our family testers, too.
"I like this shape much more than the old one." Erin said. "The old one wasn't even a contender because of the shape." One area of concern for several judges was the look of the second-row seats, but Meier discovered that "the thin-looking rear seat has a reclining back, and it is surprisingly comfy and roomy for two." In addition, Thomas noted that the "the cargo area is quite large with a low load floor."

What they didn't: Here's where the no-frills come to roost. The "2.5-liter engine [is] not nearly as nice as the available EcoBoost engines," Robinson said, but he added: "To get the Escape that I would actually want to own, I'd be pushing 30 grand, and at that point, I'm looking at bigger vehicles."
For Geiger, "the cabin is a disappointment: large, uneven panel gaps are obvious; hard plastic surfaces abound; and chintzy fabric makes the seats feel and look budget-grade." As usual, our Shootouts are about families and she noted a big fail in the second row: "There are no rear cupholders (except for the door-panel cubbies) and there's only one seatback pocket." Meier agreed. "There's just not enough useful storage for this segment." Clever underfoot storage in rear seats can't make up for the tiny console bin, lack of cubbies."
For Thomas, his biggest complaint was one we're really feeling in a steamy Midwestern summer. "Someone will have to walk me through how the air-conditioning vents work. They don't shoot air in the direction you think when adjusting them, and there are two above the HVAC controls that shoot air only toward your lap. I had a hard time getting comfortable on the longest driving portions of my test." Meier felt his own pain in a sensitive location: "The front seats are not rump-worthy for a long drive."

The verdict: "The base model is a black-plastic austerity plan," Meier said. "You have to pay more to get the real redesign, including new state-of-the-art engines."
Key Features

• EPA-estimated 22/31 mpg city/highway; we observed 27.4 mpg combined (the second lowest mpg tested).
• 68.1 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 34.3 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats (the second highest amount of combined cargo space in comparison)
• Auxiliary input for audio system
• Reclining second row
• Only vehicle tested with wheel covers
• Only vehicle tested without Bluetooth hands-free phone connectivity
• Floor storage compartment in second row
• No safety data available from NHTSA or IIHS yet

2013 Ford Escape Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $23,295
Monthly payment: $479.16*
Cheapest car in Shootout
Find a 2013 Ford Escape near you

No. 5 2012 Hyundai Tucson, 721.5 Points

(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2012 Hyundai Tucson)

What they liked: Clearly, all of the judges enjoyed how much they got for 25 grand. "Great value," Geiger said. "At this price point, we were able to get some pretty nice features: heated leather seats, a power driver's seat, hill descent control and satellite radio." "The price starts under 20 grand, and by the time you get to 25, you've got a ton of features for not a lot of price," Robinson added. "Amazingly well-dressed for the price," Meier noted. "It delivers on Hyundai's reputation for value for your bucks."
Using those features was a little easier for Thomas in the Tucson: "Give me the Tucson's straightforward tech over the Mazda's touch-screen any day. Scrolling through iPod playlists, synching your phone and making calls was intuitive and natural."
Of course, part of the equation is the driving. "The Tucson springs away from stoplights and has decent passing power," Jackson said. "Handling was top-notch in the Tucson," Thomas said. "It was one of the few crossovers that I could take at full speed through tight turns. For the family, with its 11-year-old SUV, the SUVs in this Shootout were revelations, and the Tucson was no exception.
"This one and the Mazda never would have made it" onto their shopping list. "This really feels beautiful," Nick said. "I'm really surprised by this car," Erin added. The heated leather seats were something "we didn't think we could get at this price," Erin said.

What they didn't: Where the family saw beauty in the Tucson's design, Robinson saw "ugly exterior styling." Many of the experts' complaints revolved around a slew of issues.
"Some of the controls feel cheep and light," Jackson said. "Road noise and tire roar in the Tucson are hard to ignore, making it one of the loudest SUVs in the class," Geiger said. "There's no hiding the fact the cargo area is small," Thomas said, a view that Robinson shared. Thomas continued: "It's too small for my family dog — let alone what we pack for a road trip — and it has a really high load-in height." For Meier, the "lack of visibility at the rear corners makes you see the value of backup and blind spot warning systems."

The verdict: "The Tucson remains an excellent option in the class," Thomas notes, "but the class has gotten much tougher very quickly."
Key Features

• EPA-estimated 22/32 mpg city/highway; we observed 27.6 mpg.
• Heated leather seats (only vehicle tested with feature)
• Most-expensive vehicle of the Shootout
• 55.8 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 25.7 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats (the smallest cargo area behind the second row amongst the competitors)
• Roof rack
• Five-year/60,000-mile new vehicle warranty, 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty (tied with Kia for the longest warranty)
• Power driver's seat
• Satellite radio
• IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2012

2012 Hyundai Tucson Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $25,820
Monthly payment: $531.10*
Difference from cheapest car: $51.94 a month
Find a 2012 Hyundai Tucson near you

No. 4 2012 Chevrolet Equinox, 740 Points

(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2012 Chevrolet Equinox)

What they liked: "Being the biggest one in the group, obviously there's lots of cargo space, but even more importantly, there's lots of small-item storage up front as well," Robinson noted. "The interior has an 'almost-premium' feel."
Jackson, a triathlete, picked up on that the Equinox "was the only SUV where I felt I could take a road trip in the second row thanks to the sliding rear seats.There's a huge second row and a large cargo area, too; most SUVs in this class make you choose one or the other." Meier called that sliding second row a "why can't do they do it all?" feature.
For Geiger, the Latch anchors were a winning point for the Equinox. "They rank among the best I've ever used. They're completely exposed and have lots of clearance around them — hooking up a child-safety seat is a breeze."

What they didn't: The driving experience lagged its competitors. "This powertrain needs to go to finishing school," Geiger said. "It's slow, loud and the transmission's shifts are clunky and oddly timed." Robinson concurred: "The engine, while adequate in power, has a very rough feel to it." The family had a hard time with the concept of an Eco button. "When would you use that?" they asked. The idea that the transmission adjusted electronically for better fuel economy didn't impress them.
It wasn't all about the engine, though. "On the highway the Chevy was definitely the loudest of the six with lots of road noise," Thomas said. "The seats did not provide enough support, especially for my thighs," Jackson found. And the stereo sent Meier off on a mini-rant. "The Equinox had an unexpectedly good audio with subwoofer at this price — and then there's no USB port for your iPod! Chevy should fire the bean counter whose cost-cutting will turn off those younger buyers you could have wooed with the good sound," he said. "Worse, putting a white plate in the black console reminds you where the USB would have been if you'd just paid more."

The verdict: "The Equinox is bigger than the rest of these SUVs, so it's very roomy inside, and it has one of the best rides of the group," Robinson said. "It's a great overall package that could just use a little more refinement in the powertrain."
Key Features

• EPA-estimated 22/32 mpg city/highway; we observed 27.1 mpg combined (the lowest mpg tested)
• 63.7 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 31.5 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats
• IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2012
• Power height adjustment for driver's seat
• Sliding, reclining second-row seat

2012 Chevy Equinox Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $24,355
Monthly payment: $500.97*
Difference from cheapest car: $21.81 a month
Find a 2012 Chevrolet Equinox near you

No. 3 2012 Kia Sportage, 774 Points

(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2012 Kia Sportage)

What they liked: "Getting a full navigation system with an upgraded stereo at a price in the middle of our range was a huge win for Kia," Thomas said. "Plus, the stereo sounded better than the rest, too."
Erin also liked the nav system: "It feels really high-end." That wasn't the only advantage. "The Sportage definitely has an attitude," Geiger said. "Its exterior styling breaks the compact-SUV mold; it's the edgiest-looking one of the bunch.  It also gets some brownie points in the storage department. A deep center console, coupled with under-floor storage with separate bins in the cargo area, mean there are plenty of places to stash stuff."
"The Sportage has the crisp handling of the mechanically similar Hyundai Tucson," Meier said, "but its good ride and quiet interior are amazingly better than its stablemate." Jackson also liked its "immediate engine response," and the family raved about its spaciousness. "It's really roomy," Nick said after feeling cramped in the Tucson.

What they didn't: While some experts liked the aggressive styling, "that stylish high belt line may make shorter folks claustrophobic," Meier said, "and they sure won't be resting an elbow on the window sill." He also pointed out that the rakish roof leads to "very limited rear sightlines, and that means you'll need that backup camera and you'll wish for a blind spot alert system."
For Robinson, "the interior quality doesn't seem on par with most recent Kias." "Like the Tucson, the cargo area is too small with a very high load floor," Thomas said. 
And that nav system that everyone raved about? "You've got a great nav system and you install it at an angle leaning backward toward the windshield? That leads to a lot of glare, and when it's sunny out, it is very hard to read the screen," Thomas said.

The verdict: "The sticker price and features wowed me, the family and likely other shoppers. If cargo space isn't a concern, the Sportage will be hard to ignore, Thomas said.
Key Features

• EPA-estimated 22/32 mpg city/highway; we observed 28.5 mpg combined
• Navigation system (only one equipped as-tested)
• 54.6 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 26.1 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats (least amount of maximum cargo space in Shootout)
• Heated side mirrors
• Cooling glove box (Only vehicle tested with feature)
• Backup camera
• 5-year/60,000-mile new vehicle warranty, 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty (tied with Hyundai for longest warranty)
• Satellite radio
• IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2012

2012 Kia Sportage Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $24,575
Monthly payment: $505.49*
Difference from cheapest car: $26.33 a month
Find a 2012 Kia Sportage near you

No. 2 2013 Mazda CX-5, 784 Points

(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2013 Mazda CX-5)

What they liked: The CX-5 is the first Mazda to shed the “big grin” design language the automaker has been using for the last five years.
“More than one person has described the CX-5 as ‘cute,’ ” Jackson said, even though this is the first Mazda to shed the “big grin” design language the automaker had been using for the last five years. “The interior has the richest look of any in our test,” he continued. “I kept thinking that we had to be in a model that didn’t meet our price level; it looked so nice.” But meet our price limit it did, a feat that Geiger also praised. “Low base prices and high fuel economy mean this car should appeal to penny-pinchers, and lots of features for the price (blind spot warning, backup camera and powerdriver seat) mean they’re getting a good value,” she said.

“I really like it,” Erin said about the interior. “It’s really streamlined but in a good way,” she said. Meier praised the “airy, spacious feel inside with classy trim and seat cloth and the straightforward gauges and controls,” he said. “You expect classy interiors from Mazda and CX-5 doesn't disappoint.”

Beyond that, Geiger favored the second row. “The backseat folds in a 40/20/40 split, which is useful for hauling different combinations of people and cargo. The seats also fold flat with ease, thanks to three cargo-area handles.” One of the reasons the CX-5 scored so high was its outstanding fuel economy. It was more than 2 mpg ahead of its closest competitor.

What they didn't: Part of that great fuel economy was because of, shall we say, reserved acceleration. Looking at the judges' scores, this category likely kept it from the top spot. "The CX-5's 2.0-liter engine has adequate pep from a stop, but it's on the loud side and takes awhile to gather steam," Geiger noted. "That famed Zoom-Zoom wasn't there in the handling department," Thomas said. "While it topped the CR-V and Equinox in that regard, the Escape, Tucson and Sportage all out-cornered it." Worse, Meier said: "The engine's thin power undercuts confidence in demanding situations."
The CX-5's new stereo setup also raised ire. "The info screen looks outdated, and there's a navigation button even though there's no [factory installed] nav," Robinson said.
Compared to the others in the Shootout, the CX-5's Latch anchors weren't super accessible. There wasn't a lot of clearance around the anchors, so the car seat's Latch connector has to be jammed in for it to hook on.
One big point of contention: the clock. The family and a couple of judges could not understand why the clock was placed where it was, and while they all liked the look and layout of the dashboard, they thought the air-conditioning controls and the clock felt as if they were out of a different time period than the rest of the car. "It looks basic, basic, basic," Erin said. She also thought the center armrest was "unusably too low; actually, it's too far back and too low." Husband Nick was not as wowed as the expert judges. "I hate it. I don't know why!"

The verdict: "Mazda really needs the CX-5 to be a winner, and it's poised to be," Geiger said. "The CX-5 should appeal to a wide audience with eye-catching styling, a quality interior, plenty of convenience features and excellent-for-the-class fuel economy."
Key Features

• EPA-estimated 26/32 mpg city/highway; we observed 32.8 mpg combined (highest mpg tested)
• 65.4 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 34.1 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats
• Power driver's seat 
• 5.8-inch color LCD display with backup camera
• HD Radio and satellite radio
• Blind spot warning system (only vehicle tested with feature)
• IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2012

2013 Mazda CX-5 Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $24,690
Monthly payment: $507.86*
Difference from cheapest car: $28.70 a month
Find a 2013 Mazda CX-5 near you
And the winner is...

No. 1 2012 Honda CR-V, 809 Points

(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2012 Honda CR-V)

What they liked: Perhaps the greatest compliment to be paid to our winner is that everything that came in our tester was standard for the trim level, and the combination of those features really pleased our judges.
"Even just equipped with the standard tech features, the CR-V shined," Thomas said. "The Bluetooth and USB integration works well with a vibrant color display that's easy to read, and the stereo was one of my favorites." "The CR-V is loaded with convenience features that come standard," Geiger said. "Three of my favorites are the always-helpful backup camera, the cavernous center console box and the easy fold-flat seats with cargo-area release handles. Bonus: This was the only vehicle with a sunroof at this price point." Robinson loved the "great ergonomics and the CR-V's best interior layout."
Perhaps betraying that they haven't been in the market since 2001, Erin and Nick were "totally amazed" by the conversation mirror (most commonly found in minivans) that lets parents check up on kids in the second row. "Mason, look! Mom can see you!" But that wasn't the only thing they liked about the Honda.
They had barely begun their test drive when Erin exclaimed, "It drives like a dream." She also liked the CR-V's size: "This just feels like a car, and the Chevy feels big," she said, with "big" referring to a larger SUV.

What they didn't: The CR-V is one of the totally redesigned SUVs in this contest, but not everyone thought the Honda had improved on its looks. "The rear styling is pretty bad," Jackson said. "It's got the biggest butt of any of the SUVs here. Actually, the front styling ain't so hot, either."
But it's not all about looks. "Handling is where the CR-V showed some chinks in the armor," Thomas said. "When taking corners, driver and passengers leaned more in the Honda than the other contenders." Geiger also had some issues with the driving. "Eco mode is a double-edged sword: I appreciate the potential fuel savings, but the system alters the throttle response and delays shifts points so the CR-V seems lazy," she said.
While many praised the features included in the price tag, Robinson said the CR-V "still trails many others in technological and convenience features such as blind spot monitoring systems, push-button start, etc." Finally, Thomas was bugged by one little annoyance: "Considering how many great cubbies there are around the cabin, I would really like a better place to put my smartphone."

The verdict: "The Honda CR-V is one of the most well-rounded vehicles in this segment. It's a comfortable cruiser with a solid powertrain, a compliant ride and plenty of features," Geiger said. "The brand's history of strong reliability helps tip the scale."
Key Features

• EPA-estimated 23/31 mpg city/highway; we observed 30.3 mpg combined (the second best mpg tested)
• 70.9 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 37.2 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats (largest cargo area in competition)
• Second-most expensive vehicle of the comparison test
• Sunroof (only vehicle tested with feature)
• Backup camera
• Pandora Internet radio (only vehicle tested with feature)
• IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2012

2012 Honda CR-V Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $25,425
Monthly payment: $522.98*
Difference from cheapest car: $43.82 a month
Find a 2012 Honda CR-V near you

*Monthly payment assumes good credit, no money down, 60-month loan, 5% interest and 9% sales tax.
Source;
http://www.cars.com/go/crp/buyingGuides/Story.jsp?referer=&year=New&section=SUV&story=25ksuvShootoutresult&subject=stories

Honda Cars : Autos.ca: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Review by Michael Schlee and Jonathan Yarkony; photos by Brigitte, Esmond Yau, and Jonathan Yarkony
Photo Gallery:Compact CUV comparo
Crossovers are pretty much old hat by now. Almost every manufacturer has abandoned the truck-based body-on-frame sport utility vehicle (SUV) for more advanced unibody construction, which is enough in most books to warrant slapping on the crossover utility vehicle (CUV) label. While the differences are marginal, CUVs offer the high seating position and roomy cargo area of SUVs with a more refined, car-like ride. Some even make all-wheel drive an option rather than a key standard feature. While every segment has seen the introduction of CUVs (from subcompact all the way up to full-size), compact CUVs are the second largest segment by sales (after compact cars), eclipsing even sales of large pickup trucks.
Most manufacturers are in on the segment now, but Toyota and Honda have defined it since they introduced the RAV4 and CR-V, respectively, in the mid-90s. With each generation they have gone head-to-head, leading the segment to prominence as an economical and conscientious option to large SUVs without giving up the creature comforts and utility of those practical transports.
The Honda CR-V was the eighth-bestselling light truck nameplate in Canada last year at just over 25,000, and that was in its final model year, before the introduction of this brand-new 2012 model. With this redesign, Honda again aims to raise the bar and we wanted to see if it still has the Honda mojo that sees the Civic dominate Canadian sales year after year, and the engineering that makes the subcompact Fit the darling of media, though perhaps too pricey for popular tastes.
The Toyota RAV4 is due for its own redesign very shortly, having been on the market in its current form since 2006 with only minor revisions in 2008 and a face-lift in 2011. Despite its age, Toyota sold over 21,000 RAV4s in Canada last year, thanks to variety not offered on many other CUVs, with its optional seating for seven and an optional V6 engine.
Of course, the Ford Escape is the Canadian sales champ (by almost 20K units over the CR-V), but the brand new redesigned 2013 Escape is not yet available, so we went looking elsewhere in the talent pool to see who might challenge two of the most recognized household names in the industry. We started with the Nissan Rogue, Nissan’s bestselling model after the Versa line and bestselling utility vehicle by a huge margin, accounting for 14,191 sales for Nissan in 2011. Hyundai sold a similar number of Tucsons in 2011 at 14,309, but no matter how many were sold, we would have included the Tucson, because pretty much everything Hyundai touches is gold these days; we believed the fairly fresh Tucson would be one of the strongest contenders, coming off a significant redesign only a couple years ago.
And last but not least, a brand new model from Mazda, the CX-5, using the firm’s engineering magic that gives us the brilliant MX-5, Mazda3, and Mazda5. Significantly, the CX-5 is the first Mazda to wholly incorporate its new SkyActiv technologies in every facet of vehicle design – from powertrain and chassis right down to suspension and steering – aimed at improving fuel efficiency without compromising driving fun. We had high expectations for the CX-5, because it is a new design that Mazda has had years to contemplate (while selling a rebadged Ford Escape as the Tribute), and because of Mazda’s track record for making fun, functional, and well-packaged vehicles. However, the reason we do these comparison tests is to see who comes out ahead on the road, and not simply in our preconceptions.

Fifth Place – 2012 Nissan Rogue SL AWD

Something had to finish last, and in the case of this comparison test it was the Nissan Rogue. While it finished at the back of the pack in this company, that doesn’t mean that it is not a good car in its own right, as all five CUVs were strong entrants. That being said, it simply wasn’t quite as good as the others in this group. The more we drove these compact crossovers, the more we realized each had its endearing qualities and its sore spots. Unfortunately for the Rogue, its negatives exceeded the other CUVs’ flaws. So what hurt the Rogue the most? In short, it was let down most by its interior and drivetrain.
The interior of the Rogue is a bit of a conundrum. Our fully loaded SL was awash with rich-looking soft-touch materials that were only matched in the CX-5. The overall design of the interior was conservative, to a fault. Despite the great materials, the design looks dated, which makes sense considering this is the second oldest model design in the comparison test. For every great feature like around view monitor parking cameras and standard navigation, there were basic options missing, like a telescopic steering wheel and fold-down rear-seat armrest.
The front seats received much praise for their comfort, but the low placement of the tiny radio/navigation/backup camera screen made viewing it a chore. Another chore was installing a child safety seat: with solid fixed head restraints, the over-the-seat strap had to be finagled to go around the restraint and the cargo-bay LATCH anchor was covered by an unfriendly piece of plastic. Rear cargo space was useful, but at 818 litres was the second smallest, beating only the diminutive Hyundai Tucson.
Off the line, the Rogue is a solid performer thanks to its 170-hp, 2.5-litre four-cylinder engine. The problem is, to extract the full potential out of the Rogue’s engine you must dip heavily into the throttle and allow the continuously variable transmission (CVT) to hold the engine in a high-rpm thrashing cacophony. The CVT in the Rogue is nowhere close to being the worst on the market (that “honour” goes to the Compass), but it is still a CVT and many did not like it. As the only vehicle in the test with a supposedly fuel-saving CVT, it was a bit surprising that it returned the second-worst fuel consumption at an average of 11.8 L/100 km.
It is really too bad that the drivetrain and interior nuances of the Rogue weighed it down so much, since its chassis, exterior styling and rear seat comfort all scored well with the judges and placed it respectably mid-pack in those categories.

Fourth Place – 2012 Toyota RAV4 4WD V6 Limited

Many of us were expecting bigger things from the RAV4. It was the only crossover powered by a six-cylinder engine (making in excess of 100 extra horsepower over the CX-5) and, with the highest as-tested price, was one of the most generously equipped. However, when the dust settled, the RAV4 finished at the back of the pack just ahead the Nissan Rogue. It is easy to automatically point at high price and poor fuel economy as the culprits that brought this rig down in the rankings, but in reality, it was a mediocre interior, bland exterior and poor chassis that were the RAV4’s ultimate undoing.
Most of us love the RAV4’s V6 power, grunt and character. The smoothness of the engine was matched by the smoothness of the ride. Even with an extra litre over the next largest engine, the 269-hp 3.5-litre V6 returned a decent 13.0 L/100 km fuel consumption average. That’s nowhere near the frugal CX-5′s average, but it is within 1.3 L/100 km achieved by the smaller, less powerful engines found in the Tucson and Rogue.
Transmission kick-downs are lazy, steering feel is numb, and cornering ability was deemed worst of the bunch. Understandably, these crossovers are not sports cars, but the RAV4 is so disengaging to drive that the task almost becomes a chore. It is an unfortunate case of the chassis being overmatched by the engine.
The interior feels dated, yet it is useful and well laid out. Materials are predominantly a variety of hard and harder plastics and the front seats were deemed the least comfortable. Rear seat space is generous and offers great legroom, but the seat cushions were too short and placed too low in the vehicle for our expert seat-testing team. The RAV4 ties the CR-V for the largest cargo area (just over 1,000 L) but has a trump card up its sleeve: a pair of storage areas beneath the trunk’s carpeted floor panels, thanks to the missing optional third-row seat and tailgate-mounted spare tire.
When the RAV4 first appeared as a 2006 model it was at the top of its game and a phenomenal compact crossover. However, time marches on and the seven-year-old RAV4 has not. As one of our testers commented, “(The RAV4) looks, feels and handles like the senior citizen of the group.” That said, if hauling a lot of stuff or a lot of people a lot of the time sounds like you, the RAV4’s seven-seat capacity and V6 options might be its trump cards.

Third Place – 2012 Hyundai Tucson GLS AWD

“This is the sports car of the bunch,” boldly declared one tester after a turn behind the wheel of the Tucson. Fact is, it’s not that far from the truth. Phrases like ‘fun to drive’, ‘nimble handler’ and ‘makes the RAV4 feel like an old Buick’ were heard as different evaluators stepped out after their turn with the Tucson. Being the only vehicle in this test, aside from the CR-V, on all-season tires, helped amplify the Tucson’s handling prowess. As can be expected though, this ability to carve a corner has a payoff in the form of a stiff ride. Some were okay with it, while others found it too harsh. Hyundai has yet to find that magic handling with supple ride formula in this segment that makes the Honda CR-V such a joy to drive.
The Tucson tied the RAV4 for the least comfortable front seats and a few of us found excessive wind noise intruding into the cabin. Steering was stiff and crisp if not a bit artificially heavy. The gauge cluster and HVAC drew the most criticism out of the test group but were simple to operate. Despite being the smallest vehicle in the test group, rear seat room was average and impressed us with some of the most comfortable seatbacks even if the cushions felt too low to the floor.
Cargo space, at 728 L, is the smallest in the bunch, which is to be expected considering the Tucson was the smallest in the group. Strangely enough, the smaller Tucson is heavier than both the Rogue and the CX-5, which may explain its unimpressive 11.7 L/100 km fuel consumption observed during the test.
The Tucson did arrive with the lowest as-tested price. At this price point, some options were lacking, notably a sunroof and back-up camera, but all the important convenience features were present and accounted for and some nice touches, like big side mirrors, were much appreciated. Many also appreciated the Tucson’s smooth six-speed automatic and 176-hp, 2.4-litre four-cylinder engine.
When the scores were added up and people were asked their opinion on each vehicle, “good value” kept coming up when the Tucson was discussed. That is a phrase that often comes up when any Hyundai product is discussed, and it is well-deserved. The Tucson, like most Hyundai products, delivers solid value, though it still has a ways to go to catch up with our winner.

2nd Place – 2013 Mazda CX-5 GS AWD

Mazda finally has a small crossover to call its own. The all-new 2013 CX-5 replaces the long-in-the-tooth Ford Escape-based Tribute. It is the first vehicle sold in North America to fully incorporate Mazda’s SkyActiv technology, and it also reflects its new Kodo design language with attractive, thoroughly modern sheet metal. The CX-5 was the looker of the bunch and achieved the highest average rating in any category, with a 9.8 for exterior styling. One of us even went as far as to say, “It has a ‘very BMW’ look and feel inside and out.” Inside, it is much the same story with rich, soft touch materials molded into a sophisticated design packed with features not expected on a mid-level trim.
But styling is not Mazda’s primary focus with this new crossover. Fuel economy is the name of the game. Mazda introduced certain components of its SkyActiv technology in the Mazda3 earlier this year, to lukewarm reception. With the CX-5, it was applied from the ground up. The CX-5 was the third-largest vehicle in this test and featured mid-pack cargo capacity at 966 litres behind the rear seats. Despite its size, it was still the lightest of the bunch, undercutting the smaller Rogue and Tucson. It also had the smallest engine making the least output: a 2.0-litre 4-cylinder producing 155 hp with a six-speed automatic transmission programmed with fuel economy in mind.
So did it work? Yes. SkyActiv is not marketing hype (well it is that, too, so not JUST marketing hype). The CX-5 achieved an impressive 9.6 L/100 km on a test loop that featured hilly terrain and a lot of flogging from our test crew, especially by the stragglers at the back. To put it in context, the next-closest vehicle was the Honda CR-V at 10.9 L/100 km. Beyond this test route, the CX-5 achieved a day-to-day average of 8.9 L/100 km. Not bad for a 1,555-kg all-wheel-drive crossover; to further impress you, the 1,350-kg 2012 Subaru Impreza with a CVT that we drove a few weeks ago achieved 10.0 L/100 km
With the light weight and sporty disposition, we expected the CX-5 to be a great handler. Here, we were sorely disappointed. Some blamed it on the GS trim’s 17-inch wheels and soft winter tires, but the CX-5 did not have the composed feel of the Tucson or CR-V. The vehicle would push into corners and the lazy transmission and weak engine combination made exiting turns with any haste impossible. We would love to get our hands on a GT version with the 19-inch rims and all-season tires later this spring to see if this would help remedy the problem. That said, the chassis was solid and provided a smooth, compliant ride.
Coming into this comparison test, everyone had high expectations for the brand new Mazda CX-5. With its benchmark fuel economy numbers and handsome styling, many thought we had a winner on our hands. So, what happened? Well, the CR-V happened. The CX-5 is a terrific crossover, and when the five evaluators were asked which vehicle they would put their own money on, three said the CX-5, with two of the main reasons being its gorgeous looks and tremendous fuel economy.

First Place – 2012 Honda CR-V Touring AWD

Anyone who thinks Honda can no longer build class-leading vehicles needs to get behind the wheel of the 2012 CR-V. All new for 2012, Honda has stepped up its game with the redesigned CR-V and has let some Acura qualities bleed through. Nearly every tester commented on how comfortable the front seats were. The gauge cluster would look at home in a luxury Q-ship and the dash design was elegant and well laid out. Despite the hard plastics, the CR-V’s fit and finish made them look far more expensive than they really were.
Welcome interior features on a vehicle in this class included a massive centre-armrest storage bin that looks big enough to fit a CR-Z in. The rear seats were deemed the most comfortable for three people and tied for first in comfort with two people. The multiple menu screens on the dashboard were customizable and allowed the driver to tailor what information they want readily available, though some complained of the quality of the screens.
Once behind the wheel, the CR-V was voted the easiest to drive. Every reviewer commented that this Honda was the vehicle they felt most comfortable driving, and when driving quickly to boot. The vehicle responds predictably in corners and despite some body roll, is easy to control. The nearly perfect ride balance between comfort and sport is unexpected in this class of vehicle and the steering wheel sends a surprising amount of feedback to the driver.
With 1,054 litres of cargo space behind the rear seats and a curb weight of 1,608 kg, the CR-V was one of the larger vehicles in this class. However, it still achieved the second-best observed fuel economy at 10.9 L/100 km. Impressive, considering the 2.4-litre four-cylinder engine makes the second-most power in this group, at 185 hp. Step on the gas from a dead stop and the Honda pulls away with surprising vigour, though power begins to taper off at highway speeds.
The CR-V is not perfect, though. Many found the new redesign to be a bit ungainly, garnering particular derision for the pinched rear side window. In what could be considered the most unfavourable comparison, more than one tester referred to this window as “Pontiac Aztek-like.” Our shortest reviewer also discovered that the front seats were a bit higher off the ground than the others, making entry into the CR-V a bit more of a challenge.
Still, the CR-V winning overall was a unanimous decision, as all five of us had it scored the highest. With a slight design refresh around the rear C-pillar, and maybe a bit more torque, the compact crossover CR-V would be darn near perfect.

Source;

http://www.autos.ca/car-comparisons/comparison-test-five-compact-cuvs/6