2012 Honda CR-V owner report

mastre · #1 04-10-2012, 02:31 AM

We've recently purchased a 2012 CR-V EX-L w/ Navi. I'd like to start providing relevant feedback and information on this vehicle if there is interest.

Here's a little something to whet your appetite: at only 2000 miles, the venerable K24 engine is already posting some pretty amazing MPG numbers for a vehicle this size and shape. Current tank at 410 miles shows 34.9 MPG average on the built-in MPG readout. We've only been using mild hypermiling techniques, basic DWL and DWB. 80-85% highway, including normal rush hour traffic.

I'm not sure if the engine has started to loosen up a bit already or we just got accustomed to driving it but on the last tank in particular we've seen a 1-2 MPG jump.

We're very happy with it, it feels solid and we're amazed by the gas mileage. We had already accepted the tradeoff of mileage vs. size and while we were expecting good mileage for the size, it's already exceeded it. As it stands, I can probably get equal gas mileage in the '12 CR-V as in my '03 Accord 5MT with similar driving.

Something interesting I noticed, unlike in my Accord which has a 9-year older version of the same engine, the CR-V's gas mileage seems unaffected by extra passengers. 50% of the tank referenced above is with 3 adults in the car.

FSUspectra · #2 04-10-2012, 07:59 AM

Woot, those are some decent numbers for sure! Well done!

Dream'R · #3 04-12-2012, 09:24 AM

[\QUOTE] As it stands, I can probably get equal gas mileage in the '12 CR-V as in my '03 Accord 5MT with similar driving.[/quote]

While the motor in the new CR-V may be similar to the K24 in your '03 Accord, there have been several refinments over the years to reduce internal friction. The new cars use a lighter 0W-20 oil also. But perhaps the biggest difference is in the gearing and tire diameter. From my review of the Honda specs the CR-V has approx. 20% higher gearing than your Accord (even more if yours is a FWD only version) and the tires are roughly 10% larger.

The one drawback to fuel economy you can't escape is the aerodynamic drag due to the much higher body style. The only way to reduce this is to try to keep your cruising speeds a little less than you may otherwise have been driving.

Thanks for sharing your experiences. The new CR-Vs are proving very popular and with good reason.

Cheers,

Roger

JediSpam · #4 04-19-2012, 02:42 PM

wow had no idea CRV could get those numbers

mastre · #5 04-23-2012, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dream'R

While the motor in the new CR-V may be similar to the K24 in your '03 Accord, there have been several refinments over the years to reduce internal friction. The new cars use a lighter 0W-20 oil also. But perhaps the biggest difference is in the gearing and tire diameter. From my review of the Honda specs the CR-V has approx. 20% higher gearing than your Accord (even more if yours is a FWD only version) and the tires are roughly 10% larger.

I've been using Mobil 1 0W-20 in my Accord for the past 100k+ miles so in that regard it's apples to apples. The engines use the same oil filter too (I do my own oil changes). I think the differences having the biggest impact are the gearing (as you pointed out) and the electric power steering on the CR-V vs. Accord's hydraulic. The CR-V barely turns 2000 RPM at 65 MPH while the 5MT Accord needlessly spins much higher.

Note that I run 225/45R17s on the Accord, the stock 15s would add a bit to the Accord's bottom line.

nighthawk · #6 04-25-2012, 08:50 AM

Thanks for the info on the 2012 CRV. Wish I had a K24 in mine to see what I could do with it. But the B20 is returning decent mileage for what it is.

xcel · #7 05-13-2012, 12:25 AM

Hi Mastre:

Does your CR-Vs aFCD under report fuel economy compared to the actual miles traveled/gallons consumed like most Honda's as of late? If so, by how much?

TIA.

Wayne

mastre · #8 05-15-2012, 01:37 AM

Hi Wayne!

From what I've seen so far, it's over-reporting by 0.5-1.0 MPG. However, the actual MPG calculation may not be very accurate because I'm not topping off all the way (gas vapors concerns, for me breathing in and environment in general); we're slowly exploring the extra capacity of the tank by rounding up the the next full dollar, then pumping another $2's worth of gas. Last tank we upped the ante to $3 after rounding up. We try to run her down to 0 miles range indicated on aFCD; so far the most she's taken is 14.5 gal, best actual MPG on an entire tank (80% highway) is 35.9 MPG.

The great thing is that my significant other is driving it 95% of the time (it's her car) and while I've started to teach her about hypermiling (and she's been receptive), I believe I can wring more out myself. One of these days I'll have the opportunity for an extended drive

Let me know if there's anything else you want me to check. I've been reading your CX-5 review and I now wonder if there's a way to turn the DRLs off in the CR-V - in Auto they are on all day (but the tails aren't until it gets dark).

Something else I'm thinking about: I do 10k mile OCIs in my Accord (older version of the same K24 engine, same oil type, same oil filter) with Mobil 1 0W20. Do you know what the factory fill in new K24 Hondas is? The computer says oil life has 70% left with 3k+ miles on the odo, I'd rather not risk it to 10k though, thinking of doing the oil and tire rotation @ 7500, then I'll know what's in her.

Is there a '12 CR-V test in the cards? Would love to see what you think of and can do with one.

-Duke

some_other_dave · #9 05-15-2012, 01:48 PM

I personally would not take any car down to 0 range indicated. I've run out of fuel once (in my CRX), that was quite enough. Also note that running most fuel pumps very very very low on fuel for longer periods of time can be bad for them. Fuel running through the pump serves to cool it, and if there is very little fuel it will heat up and stay warm, reducing the pump cooling. It also runs the risk of disturbing any debris in the tank, which can potentially clog the pump inlet.

I ran my Cooper down to about 20 miles indicated range. I'm not doing that again--in part for the above reasons, in part because the low fuel warnings got pretty obnoxious in the last ~5 miles of that.

-soD

PaleMelanesian · #10 05-15-2012, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by some_other_dave

I personally would not take any car down to 0 range indicated. I've run out of fuel once (in my CRX), that was quite enough. Also note that running most fuel pumps very very very low on fuel for longer periods of time can be bad for them. Fuel running through the pump serves to cool it, and if there is very little fuel it will heat up and stay warm, reducing the pump cooling. It also runs the risk of disturbing any debris in the tank, which can potentially clog the pump inlet.

I ran my Cooper down to about 20 miles indicated range. I'm not doing that again--in part for the above reasons, in part because the low fuel warnings got pretty obnoxious in the last ~5 miles of that.

-soD

I won't run mine down to the bottom, unless I can break a distance record. That's a pretty tall order after 5 years hypermiling, so it's pretty much never. I share your concerns about the fuel pump.

Oh, I mean to the bottom of the tank, not to zero indicated. There's often about a half gallon to a gallon difference between those.