Automakers love a good gizmo, don’t they? From phone-as-key functionality to built-in Amazon Alexa, technophiles aren’t exactly hurting for choice when purchasing a new car. That’s all well and good if you’re into gadgets, but what if you just want an economical small car that’s pleasant to drive and carries a ton of stuff? Well, you might want to take a look at the Honda HR-V.
It might not be the most visually appealing thing on the roads, and it might be a bit expensive for a subcompact crossover, but it’s way better to live with than you might expect. In fact, after living with it for a week, it’s easy to see why someone might buy an HR-V over a Civic, even though the Civic’s an excellent car in its own right.
[Full disclosure: Honda Canada let me borrow this HR-V for a week so long as I kept the shiny side up, returned it with a full tank of fuel and reviewed it.]
The Basics
Engine: Two-liter naturally aspirated inline four-cylinder.
Transmission: Continuously variable transmission.
Output: 158 horsepower at 6,500 rpm, 138 lb.-ft. at 4,200 rpm.
Fuel economy: 25 mpg city, 30 mpg highway, 27 mpg combined.
Body style: Five-door subcompact crossover utility vehicle.
Base price: $26,795 including freight ($33,096 Canadian)
Price as tested: $32,850 including freight ($41,796 Canadian)
Why Does It Exist?
It’s no secret that subcompact crossovers are so hot right now, and they’ve undergone quite the transformation over what you’d have seen in showrooms five or six years ago. While most of these little CUVs used to be built on subcompact car bones, the majority of them have migrated to compact car platforms, and that’s exactly what Honda’s done here. Think of the current HR-V a bit like a less expensive Civic hatchback with available all-wheel-drive, and you’ll be on the right track.
How Does It Look?
Some cars don’t hold up to anthropomorphic standards well, and man, is the HR-V ever one of them. The front fascia has this dead-eyed expression of sulking contempt, a wide-mouthed look that would emit a constant groan, if this face could talk. It somehow looks annoyed at its own existence, a rather shocking feat to manage.
Elsewhere, the HR-V looks a bit too big for its wheels, and its oversized taillights sit heavy on the bodywork, adding to a slight sense of disproportion. More linear surfacing to visually stretch out the wheelbase would help, as the curves and folds in profile seem to shrink the length of the doors, and the black spoiler filler panels don’t quite cheat the oddly concave rear of the greenhouse. Of course, styling’s a matter of taste, but it seems that Honda could’ve spent a bit more time creating a more visually appealing product here. It’s a shame, because even though the coachwork doesn’t look special, the HR-V has plenty of heart.
How’s It Drive?
Setting off in the HR-V, the first thing you’ll notice is gloriously heavy, accurate steering that you don’t quite get from anything else in the segment. It gives the HR-V a sense of confidence and immediacy that’s matched by a suitably buttoned-down chassis, and the combined result is a nimble little car in classic Honda tradition. It also rides with the comfort and maturity of a larger crossover, thanks in part to its independent rear suspension isolating bumps nicely compared to the torsion beam rear-end setups so common in this segment.
In a way, the HR-V needs to be able to straighten on-ramps because there really isn’t a whole lot of forward motivation on tap. On paper, 158 horsepower sounds pretty great, but in this fully loaded all-wheel-drive trim, it needs to push around 3,333 pounds of crossover utility vehicle. As a result, the continuously variable transmission is eager to let the two-liter engine rev out to 4,000 rpm just keeping up with the pace of traffic, but as you’d expect from a Honda, the engine feels like it lives for redline. The bottom line is that despite modest power, there’s a fun to the HR-V you won’t find in many other subcompact crossovers. It feels lower and more agile than its silhouette suggests, which makes sense considering it’s essentially a modern reimagination of the Civic Wagon.
How’s The Interior?
Over the past few years, Honda’s made a real upmarket push when it comes to materials, interior design, and switchgear, so how does that translate to an entry-level model like the HR-V? Quite well, actually. From the smooth leather on the steering wheel to the satisfyingly clicky switchgear, everything you interact with inside this subcompact crossover feels a cut above the standard of the segment. Even the upscale, minimalist cabin themes of the Civic and Accord have been scaled back well for this application, with enough textiles and ultra-soft plastics to elevate the dashboard without hugely ballooning the bill of materials.
Since the HR-V holds a more entry-level market position than the Civic Hatchback, there are definitely panels that feel cheaper than what you’d get in a comparable Civic, but you won’t find any offensive plastics here. Everything’s tightly grained, nothing’s outright scratchy, and almost everything feels so solidly assembled, it’s like the whole interior’s glued together with epoxy. The only demerit I could find inside was an ill-fitting console armrest, but otherwise, you get your money’s worth out of the HR-V’s cabin.
Does It Have The Electronic Crap I Want?
If you’re big into tech, the 2025 Honda HR-V might not offer all the features you’re looking for. There’s no head-up display on offer, no all-digital gauge cluster available, and Wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto is only available on the top trim, with wired connections mandatory on the HR-Vs most people will actually buy. Speaking of infotainment, the native system is on the slow and clunky side,
There’s no branded premium audio system on offer here, and while the 180-watt eight-speaker sound system on this top EX-L trim is adequate, it’s certainly eclipsed in power and clarity by the likes of the JBL system in the Toyota Corolla Cross and the Bose system in the Nissan Kicks. You don’t get paddle shifters either. However, what you do get is a gimmick-free interior with amenities you can actually use. Automatic climate control is standard on all trim levels, the available heated seats keep their memory, and two three-amp USB-C ports and a 2.5-amp USB port have the juice to charge modern devices. Even if you haven’t bought a new car in 15 years, you can still hop in the HR-V and know how most things work, and that’s important.
Three Things To Know About The 2025 Honda HR-V
- The door cards feature this funky wavy texture that hides scuffs and makes them look and feel more expensive than they are.
- It’s remarkably fun to drive.
- Unlike in the previous generation, the lower cushions of the rear seat no longer flip up for vertical transport of tall cargo.
Does It Fulfil Its Purpose?
By taking gimmicks off the table and focusing on fundamentals, Honda’s seriously improved the HR-V for its second generation, turning it into a rather compelling compact crossover for people who want a nice car in a small, practical form factor. It does everything you’d ask of it, delivering where it really counts: out on the road. Sure, it might seem expensive for what you get on paper, but cars aren’t driven on paper.
What’s The Punctum Of The 2025 Honda HR-V?
Don’t judge this subcompact crossover by its styling and pricing alone.
(Photo credits: Thomas Hundal)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
The Honda HR-V Is The Crossover For People Who Don’t Want A Crossover
-
Micro Review: The 2025 Toyota Corolla Hybrid AWD Just Makes Sense, Doesn’t It?
-
The $36K Chevy Equinox EV Is The Best Electric Car For Most People
-
America Might Be Getting The Wrong 2024 Honda Civic Si: Sensible Car Review
Please send tips about cool car things to tips@theautopian.com. You could even win a prize!
Just looked at the local dealers site. 12 of these in stock. All listed at 27K or below.
Does not include dealer add ins, etc.
Every time I see an HR-V my mind sees HPV. And I wonder if Honda ever workshopped the name before they released it.
I read it as “Harvey,” which makes sense because they always seem to sneak up behind me.
I’m happy with my Corolla Cross. It sounds like the HR-V might be better handling, but I’m commuting in Chicago at like, 12 MPH, and there are no canyons to carve. It’s a hybrid, too, so the mileage is way better, and the JBL sound system is great.
I’m also gonna say that the HR-V is really “eggy-looking”, even in such a supposedly anonymous segment. I guess it figures that it’s built on a Civic platform, because those have been off stylistically for two generations.
Corolla Cross hybrid powertrain should be bulletproof also. As someone who looked at HRVs, I find it hard to trust a real CVT (even if it’s Honda’s). eCVTs are a different breed and should probably be called something else entirely.
I actually find the styling of these intriguing, especially in profile. Even the front is above average.
Me too- I think it’s far and away the best looking small SUV
I agree. The HR-V looks sporty and refined. The Corolla Cross isn’t ugly, but it’s not good-looking either. It’s just there. I like how the Crosstrek looks more like a car than an SUV, but the cladding and styling are starting to become more busy and angry than I like.
Kia Soul is cheaper and delivers much better mileage. I bet there’s quite a few other competitors that do the same. Although, the interior of this HR-V does look nice.
Most Souls are rated 27/33/30 city/hwy/combined, so about the same as the FWD HR-V’s 26/32/28 (which in reviewing the article – it doesn’t look like it was cited that the 25/30/27 is specifically the AWD model, which would be a helpful detail). The Soul is also a tick smaller, the Seltos is a closer comparison and is rated up to 28/34/31.
The HR-V is on the low end by 2-3 mpg against most, but chances are if you’re shopping the segment, smaller size and price are more of a motivation than price/economy, or you’re going hybrid (Niro, Corolla Cross hybrid). None are all that great given their power outputs since the next size up (CR-V, Sportage, etc) has more power and better rated economy.
Actually, among the FWD options the Trax is the real value winner, a loaded one tops out where the base HR-V starts and they’re close in size, power, economy…just the non-DI, NA 2.0 in the Honda is probably the better reliability bet.
That makes a little more sense. In the real world, all of these little machines are probably going to do about the same and none of them are going to set the track on fire, so I’d wager it comes down to personal taste and pricing. I suspect that a Honda will run longer than a Kia as well.
The Seltos (and Kona) are good features-per-dollar value for the price in that classic H/K fashion and I haven’t read any horror stories on the 2.0/”IVT” combo like the past GDI issues either. But yeah, that particular Honda powertrain seems like about as safe a bet as there is among new cars currently.
We switched from a ’16 CRV to a ’24 Seltos because
(1) the ’24 CRV had gotten too big, and the ’24 Seltos was about the size of the old CRV and
(2) the ’16 CRV crankshaft ate itself at 130K miles so I wasn’t going to let Honda reliability sway the decision
If you’re the type that buys new and drives it until the wheels fall off maybe. But Hondas usually have better resale value so TCO would fall in Hondas favor Imo.
The front styling brings to mind two words: mouth breather. I’m not fond of where Honda has gone with the CR-V’s front end either. A CR-V should not be trying to look butch. We had a 2006 CR-V and other than it being incredibly loud on the beat-up old sections of concrete with nearly cobblestone-sized rocks that make up still long sections of I-5 in western WA, it was such a great car for what it was.
No offense, but wasn’t the 2006 CR-V also trying to ‘look butch’ with its outboard mounted spare and swing-out tailgate to mimic a real SUV? At least the new one looks better than the outgoing one that had all the swoopy chrome at the front.
No offense taken! And… I got the dates wrong. Ours was a pre-facelift Gen 2. So, 2001? I think. The taillights reminded me of a Volvo V70. Which I think was a good thing. And it replaced a ’94 Jeep GC. Smaller on the outside, bigger on the inside.
Anyway, I thought it had a pretty innocuous face. The 2024 Hybrid went particularly ugly to me eyes. Weird little “scoops” under the front bumper.
Re: the spare and swing-out tailgate, we never had a flat, nor a stolen spare, mounted on what I thought was a really nice-looking alloy wheel. And never got a parking spot where the direction the tailgate opened mattered. If anything, it made it easier for our dogs to jump in the back.
My wife didn’t trust it at 160K sending our son off to law school in Wisconsin. I found an AWD 2015 Escape (down in New Orleans, where he took a gap year) that has been okay. But there’s something messed up with the heater controls that apparently is expensive to fix. Something like not being able to direct the airflow to the windshield in defrost mode. And he and his wife are still in Wisconsin. So…
They bought a CX-5 for their DD and the Escape does second car duty only when necessary.
They should probably sell it and use Lyft/Uber. But it’s their two-car garage. Lol.
Not that it matters, but second gen started in 2002. I had one of the first ones.
It’s so long ago, I wouldn’t swear to anything. It could’ve been 2003 or 2004, even. I just don’t remember. 🙁
But I do remember being very fond of that car, other than the road noise. I taught my kid how to drive and park in it. He took his license exam in it. If I could buy it now, in the condition it was then, I would.
Wife had a first gen one and i really liked it although not a fan of cvt and how it kinda wasnt sure how to operate sometimes, but with this one, i REALLY hope the refresh fixes the derpy front end on it. The whole thing dont look bad but that front bumper cover is just gawd awful.
Until now. (cue new video segment)
….okay, but seriously, I don’t have any strong opinions on this car either way, but my 2012 Prius v is rated 44/40 mpg, has 134 horses, and weighs ~3,500 pounds empty, so I wonder how different it feels with a belt CVT (presumably) instead of the eCVT.
I like this well enough for the segment but for the price, it’s rather stingy in some features. Which is true of the segment in general, but for $30k I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect say, a center rear armrest, especially for a model that boasts about having larger/roomier than its competitors.
The MCE will likely add tech but hopefully they add some more value to the price.
Throwing the hybrid powertrain in should be a no-brainer, the combo already exists in the global ZR-V, but seems like they would’ve hinted at it coming in the business outlook where other product like the CR-V TrailSport came up. I do wonder if it’s a plant/production limitation, since ours are built in Mexico which I don’t think produces anything else, while the Honda hybrids are from US & Canadian plants.
Much as I like these – especially the interior – this kills it for me:
That’s atrocious mileage for a compact. For comparison, that’s worse than what a Mk7 GTI is rated for (25/33/28) so why would you get a car with way less power and more weight just to earn worse mileage?
What’s more surprising is that Honda doesn’t offer this as a hybrid, since it’s all based on the Civic anyway. Why give the sedan a hybrid but not the hotter-market compact CUV?
The really bad part is, it has the engine the previous gen HR-V should have got, but since it’s heavier than the already heavy previous gen, it’s slower AND gets worse fuel mileage. The previous HR-V was already slow and got bad fuel mileage. I should know. I have one. It makes my old 2007 Fit Sport Manual feel like a rocket. I feel like I’d lose my mind in the current one.
Honda US has always had a habit of cutting down choices on powertrains on everything. In Japan, where this car is sold as the ZR-V, you can get a 1.5L turbo or a 2.0L Hybrid but we’re stuck with an underpowered 2.0L non-hybrid. But the reason why Honda US doesn’t offer anything better is, they don’t want to cannibalize sales from the CR-V, especially now the current HR-V is bigger than the old one. If you want more power or more efficiency, you gotta shell out for the CR-V.
I wish they had just gave us the actual HR-V everybody else got (Vezel in Japan). It’s smaller and looks better. I bet it’s quicker and more efficient as well. To be fair, I bet the ZR-V is too with it’s powertrain options.
Yeah, I also had this rant. Sucks that our options here on the USDM are arbitrarily hindered by self-competition.
And you trust those numbers from VW?
LOL /s
I got them from the US gov’s fuel economy testing results page, which I linked to
Apparently it’s not focusing on the things that really matter after all.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The base Mk3 Focus hatch introduced in 2011 also beat it handily in power (from the same size engine), performance, and mileage (you just didn’t want it with the DCT. Then again, this is a belt CVT…). I put over 200k trouble-free miles on mine before it was rear-ended. Of course, this “sub compact” CUV does have a lot more cargo room, so there’s that.
Less than 30 mpg from a small Honda isn’t much to get excited about. The Corolla Cross Hybrid is rated at 45/38, has similar power numbers, is about the same price, and can be painted Mazda’s Soul Red Crystal.
There would have to be a lot wrong with the Toyota to see myself choosing the HR-V over it.
The Corolla Cross hybrid has way better power numbers than this.
HRV: 158 hp
Corolla Cross Hybrid: 196 hp
I thought I saw 161, well guess there is another one in the Corolla’s column then.
Yeah the numbers really aren’t in the HRVs favour. It should have had the hybrid at this generation’s debut.
I think the point the article is making- and this is echoed in other reviews- is that the HRV driving experience is actually pretty enjoyable, even if it could use more power. The interior looks and feels good, and the handling is engaging. These are the kind of positive reviews people seem to give Mazdas, which also tend not to have the best numbers.
The Corolla Cross frequently gets elevated as the perfect car, and maybe it is on paper, but those who’ve driven it suggest it is pretty grim. Car and Driver calls the performance ‘dull’ with ‘lifeless steering and handling’. I have a hard time understanding how Toyota managed to build a 200hp hatchback that is so mediocre to drive, but apparently they’ve managed it.
While I’m sure it’s better to drive than the Toyota (be tough to be much worse), I have trouble imagining it’s that much better to justify the difference in mileage and performance. These are both very boring vehicles for people who put the driving experience at the bottom of the list of importance.
If they could drop the CVT for a better auto, it would be easier to recommend one. But that low of power with a CVT? I couldn’t imagine merging on a highway or interstate with that. Or passing someone.
I mean, this is hearsay, but I thought CVTs have generally been getting better in more recent years.
But also, I pass people in my Prius v….which is 134 combined horses, and ~150 pounds heavier than this before I sit in it.
Maybe the bar is low, but I think this is one of the best-looking cars in its segment. I mean, just compare it to the previous HR-V, which I would describe as “What if Walmart had created a Great Value-brand compact crossover?” The current one has smooth contours and is just the tiniest bit sporty in front, while the rear 3/4 looks like a mini Macan. (Go look at one in person, the pictures here do nothing for it.)
Having said that, I would never buy one as long as it is offered in its current torque-free guise. I’m guessing it’s noisy inside too, like all Hondas.
People may call you crazy, but I’ve heard the Macan reference before. A friend of mine was car shopping in 2023 and asked me about the HR-V when we spotted one in traffic, making the same “we have Porsche at home” comparison. I never would have thought it, but I can’t unsee it now.
(No hybrid made it a non-starter, she bought a CR-V.)
Weak 4 banger with a CVT that delivers meh MPGs and they intentionally leave out the one feature that makes their crappy out of date ‘tech’ irrelevant until you get the most expensive option?
Wow, so exciting! Sign me up for exactly zero of these.
You can get your wireless phone mirroring with a $59 USB add on so it’s not too big of an issue. The AAwireless 2 is out of stock so i cant give pricing for the most recent https://a.co/d/j0oDnE3
So it should cost $4 as an option. My point is they’re being asses on purpose, not that there is no workaround.
CX-30 enters the chat.
Agreed. I’ve said it before on subcompact reviews. Other than probably interior volume, this does nothing meaningfully better than the CX-30. At least the Trax wins on price (though not by much). Comparable CX-30s are nearly identically priced to this HR-V and look a hell of a lot better
I liked the CX-30, but the tiny windows/poor visibility and the uncomfortable driver’s seat knocked it off my list.
Your $32k is 100% better spent on a superior CPO car. This is way too much money for what it is. Those are terrible power (and mpg) numbers for a 2 liter 4 cylinder. Do better.
My theory is that they made it ugly on purpose to get people to spend more for the Civic hatch or CR-V.
‘Yes, you can get a relatively affordable, practical, and good little crossover! Sorry it looks like a melted tub of lard, hope you can get around that!’
I don’t know why, but I like the HR-V, more than the CR-V or Pilot.
Aren’t these excruciatingly slow? Like 10-11 seconds to 60?
That’s excruciatingly slow?
My old ’97 Econoline and current 2012 Prius v both are in that range and they’ve been fine for me in Pennsylvania.
I would argue it is in a new car in 2025. My 2015 Fit does 8.0/8.5 and it can be difficult to keep up with traffic (I do love it though). All that and the HR-V’s mileage isn’t very good either.
Depends on power delivery. I’ve driven cars that do 0-60 in 14 seconds that feel completely fine and ones that do it in 9-10 that feel dangerously slow. Modern cars with their delays in throttle and transmission response combined with smaller non-hybrid N/As like this one that lack the low end torque of a turbo or electric motor tend to feel like total dogs most of the time.
They aren’t bad looking basic transportation, but give us low price, more MPG, some decent cargo room, something. I don’t see the appeal of this over most any hatchback or SUV.
At a moment when designs are trending toward sharp & creased, why did the HR-V become more blobby?
The front end reminds of the jack-o-lanterns where the innards are shown coming out of the mouth like puke.
Punctum=Genus of Land Snails
Yep, it does look like a snail.
Wait, it’s cheaper than a Civic hatch? This makes no sense.
The Civic hatch is massively overpriced. When I bought my GR86, I was looking for the cheapest manual Civic hatch and, ignoring dealer markups that I would have surely been staring at, they were several grand more. The Si was cheaper!
“The Si was cheaper!”
That’s just bizarre.
That was the prices online assuming no markups, which Honda dealers were hammering people with at the time. Including markups, IDK, as I imagine the Si would be in higher demand. I just found the hatch’s price shockingly high in the first place and I’ve been told that Honda is like Toyota in that they don’t do orders, only allocations, so I wouldn’t likely even get the color I wanted (I did get exactly what I wanted with the Toyota for no markup, but that was luck).
Appreciate the context, that’s still a wild story to me.
Good review. I’m going to check this one out in person.