The old 2litre loved a drink.[emoji482] the newer 1.8 is much better on E85 but top fuel is little or no saving I've found.E85 was 18.75 yesterday.

The old 2litre loved a drink.[emoji482] the newer 1.8 is much better on E85 but top fuel is little or no saving I've found.E85 was 18.75 yesterday.

and the 1.8 of the hrv is more efficient than that in the civic due to the cvt (and faster to 100 km/h as well). The 2.0 surely does drink a lot, but I generally drive it only on the weekends now.

Have you tested the accuracy of the readings? Record how much is put in, drive, and return the the same pump and refill. I found my meter is about 6% optimistic - my FC is slightly worse than showing on my meter.

The calculated fuel consumption (kilometres and litres) after a fill-up are not the same as on the board computer, indeed. 6% is also about my experience.

I use the board computer date for comparison of different drive style and traffic situations and not the absolute values.

The new Mazda Skyactive engines are far more efficient than the old Ford technology. After 1 year with the new Mazda 3 and now the CX-3 I would say that the new engines are 20–25% more efficient.

I know many foreigner, who bought a Honda Freed, instead of a small crossover.

It is a different approach, but a quite interesting package for people who look for a lot of space on a small footprint. The riding position is higher than the Mazda CX-3. The ground clearance is also quite good.

The space inside is enormous and the powered sliding door extremely practical. I also look at the Honda Freed, when it was introduced. But it is underpowered, I don't like the CVT and cost more than 1 million Baht the first years.

Will we see, if Honda will keep in the production line and introduce a new model, with more power.

Why they use those stupid names like Skyactive is not informative. Just state BHP,CC,Turbo,Petrol or Diesel.

I know many foreigner, who bought a Honda Freed, instead of a small crossover.

It is a different approach, but a quite interesting package for people who look for a lot of space on a small footprint. The riding position is higher than the Mazda CX-3. The ground clearance is also quite good.

The space inside is enormous and the powered sliding door extremely practical. I also look at the Honda Freed, when it was introduced. But it is underpowered, I don't like the CVT and cost more than 1 million Baht the first years.

Will we see, if Honda will keep in the production line and introduce a new model, with more power.

Have you seen the new honda br-v. It also has 1.5+cvt, 5 or 7 seat configurations. It's really a jacked up jazz. The interior is like the jazz too. I think it's in the 700-800K range. I don't like that big single rear door on the freed, and it's quite expensive like you said. A few parents at my school use a freed - good for school runs I guess.

The old 2litre loved a drink.[emoji482] the newer 1.8 is much better on E85 but top fuel is little or no saving I've found.E85 was 18.75 yesterday.

and the 1.8 of the hrv is more efficient than that in the civic due to the cvt (and faster to 100 km/h as well). The 2.0 surely does drink a lot, but I generally drive it only on the weekends now.

Ive got the 2 and the cvt isnt faster over the marker posts i use to test all rides to 120.Cant stand the noisy 17inch Dunlops if i used it every day id have to get Mich. Otherwise i like the HR. its a chirpy wee ting.

The old 2litre loved a drink.[emoji482] the newer 1.8 is much better on E85 but top fuel is little or no saving I've found.E85 was 18.75 yesterday.

and the 1.8 of the hrv is more efficient than that in the civic due to the cvt (and faster to 100 km/h as well). The 2.0 surely does drink a lot, but I generally drive it only on the weekends now.

Ive got the 2 and the cvt isnt faster over the marker posts i use to test all rides to 120.Cant stand the noisy 17inch Dunlops if i used it every day id have to get Mich. Otherwise i like the HR. its a chirpy wee ting.

There's not much difference, not such a difference you would notice driving anyway. It seems to lie between the civic 1.8 and civic 2.0.

Casual driver, not really into cars but like the look of both the HRV and the new civic. Which is the better overall choice. Thanks

Casual driver, not really into cars but like the look of both the HRV and the new civic. Which is the better overall choice. Thanks

Now, the HR-V. Or wait for the next generation civic which is better in almost every department, according to overseas reports. Lots of space in the hr-v if you carry lots of stuff.

The HRV is despecked here to the ones I saw I the US. Costs more and and no 4x4. Recon we will get the same scam with the civic

. Civic full US,behind is the Accoutants version HR.

The old 2litre loved a drink.[emoji482] the newer 1.8 is much better on E85 but top fuel is little or no saving I've found.E85 was 18.75 yesterday.

and the 1.8 of the hrv is more efficient than that in the civic due to the cvt (and faster to 100 km/h as well). The 2.0 surely does drink a lot, but I generally drive it only on the weekends now.

Ive got the 2 and the cvt isnt faster over the marker posts i use to test all rides to 120.Cant stand the noisy 17inch Dunlops if i used it every day id have to get Mich. Otherwise i like the HR. its a chirpy wee ting.

There's not much difference, not such a difference you would notice driving anyway. It seems to lie between the civic 1.8 and civic 2.0.

If the 0-100 time is > 10 seconds, it doesn't matter anymore - it's a slow car and you're simply not buying it for it's acceleration

Some might even make that argument for anything > 8 s (or less)

Casual driver, not really into cars but like the look of both the HRV and the new civic. Which is the better overall choice. Thanks

If we get the 1.5L turbo upon launch, the Civic. If not, the HR-V has the same underpinnings, with a more practical body attached.

Casual driver, not really into cars but like the look of both the HRV and the new civic. Which is the better overall choice. Thanks

If we get the 1.5L turbo upon launch, the Civic. If not, the HR-V has the same underpinnings, with a more practical body attached.

Thank you.

The BRV is a jacked up Brio, the HRV a jacked up Jazz - both have jacked up prices.

The BRV is a jacked up Brio, the HRV a jacked up Jazz - both have jacked up prices.

I think the dimensions of the brio are slightly smaller? The Br-v has the jazzes interior. I think honda have realised what a failure the brio has been Idecent engine though) and have more away from those design cues.

If the 0-100 time is > 10 seconds, it doesn't matter anymore - it's a slow car and you're simply not buying it for it's acceleration

Some might even make that argument for anything > 8 s (or less)

True, none of them are 'fast' at this price point. But 10 seconds is respectable for a regular car driven around town...and feels a lot faster than an ecocar. Mid range punch is more important. 5-6 seconds 80-120 is nice for overtaking. Bring on the 1.5 turbo!

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1452325103.375639.jpg. Civic full US,behind is the Accoutants version HR.

gotta fire your accountant... low model(black stripe) yet spent money on an ugly chrome door handle for the back

Wouldn't know ,it's for our Son .Hes already stuck Yobbo Sound System in.[emoji443][emoji441][emoji446]

By the way Mr Bear ,after seeing the top one in USA early this year ,lost interest here and left it to the family. Only instruction . No Brain Dead Black one.

back on e85 on the HRV. The gain in HP/torque or whatever is very noticable again.

Im wondering is it possible that the stronger pull makes the car use less gas than with gasohol when using eco mode(low rpms). As it's getting to its speed with more ease, it should use less gas right?

Gonna keep testing with the eco mode, last time i think i had too much fun with manual mode on e85 :>

back on e85 on the HRV. The gain in HP/torque or whatever is very noticable again.

Im wondering is it possible that the stronger pull makes the car use less gas than with gasohol when using eco mode(low rpms). As it's getting to its speed with more ease, it should use less gas right?

Gonna keep testing with the eco mode, last time i think i had too much fun with manual mode on e85 :>

....you got bragging rights..."my ride runs 11's" No need to tell them the units

Any word on the HRV getting the 1.5 turbo? The new civic doesn't look to be getting the latest units

Any word on the HRV getting the 1.5 turbo? The new civic doesn't look to be getting the latest units

I haven't heard any rumblings of that nature... That would make it a very interesting car though!

crash test pics that cd cause concern if you were considering an HRV

IIHS side impact test took the B pillar clean off its base. The 2nd pic is a small overlap impact. still classed as acceptable

isnt that better than any car under 1million in thailand? Seems to me that most of the trash sold here ends up like that at 20kph

isnt that better than any car under 1million in thailand? Seems to me that most of the trash sold here ends up like that at 20kph

The small overlap frontal impact in the 2nd photo is actually very good. This is the American test in which all the impact zone is only as wide as a headlight, and it's crashed into a solid object - not the same as the EU tests where it's 40% overlap into a deformable barrier.

The side impact test is a little worrying, but without understanding the test protocol, hard to judge.

on the first picture it seems that all people even small children in booster seats would have survived

Im sure that in the same test with expat's favorite the toyota vios, they would have been crushed all the way down under the right wheel of the car(if they had been seating on the left)

If 1m or just under is the budget, the RAV4 scores very well in the tests as does the Mazda 3.