Like all auto-mags, they are good for nothing but wrapping fish-n-chips....

 

Oh, have you folks moved on from wrapping it in newspaper?

 

Well, your post triggered me to go look up their review and read it. Like typical vehicle review geeks, they are mostly nit picking, which is shoddy on their part in my view.

Funny part though is MT actually has two different reviews up from October 19 on the new CRV, and they DO NOT even agree with each other in a range of aspects. This is the more honest and sincere of the two in my view, and even this one seems to want a revolution in design, rather than evolution from a consistent legacy that is the CRV.

2023 Honda CR-V SUVOTY Review: Too Good For Its Own Good?

Lots about the new CR-V rocks—the figurative boat isn’t one of them.

www.motortrend.com

They also do not exactly role play as the target buying audience when they review vehicles.. they are too much into poor data analysis and opinion as though every vehicle is tested as a sports car.

Motor Trend by the way, does not have exactly a great legacy as a vehicle review company. They have been barn storming positive in past years on what turned out to be some real turkeys on the market. They tend to prefer revolution rather than evolution in established vehicles when a new generation rolls out. Which means they are on a very different page than Honda is in terms design and features. So you always have to take them with a grain of salt, and check and confirm their data and assumptions with the likes of Consumer Reports.

Example:

Tipping the scales at 3,613 pounds (with a 58/42-percent front/rear weight distribution), the new CR-V is 92 pounds heavier than the '21 Touring. Despite the same output from the same engine—190 hp and 179 lb-ft—the new CR-V took 8.7 seconds to get to 60 mph, 0.9 second longer than the old CR-V, and it ran the quarter-mile in 16.7 seconds at 86.4 mph, 0.6 second and 0.1 mph slower than the aforementioned 2021. Braking performance was notably worse at 130 feet versus 119 for the old CR-V.

1) I don't think they adjusted to the new performance tune on the engine, which moves more torque down to a lower rpm for the purposes of acceleration from 0mph.
2) the handling characteristics they measured are small differences that are well into the noise and no driver will ever notice.
3) I doubt the braking numbers they presented. Something fishy here, as I am sure it is the same core brake design and approach just like the engine from the Gen5s. I need to see the CR results on braking, before I believe the MT comments.
4) they are evaluating it against deliberately sporty CRV competition, which is a mistake.. because that is what the Acura RDX is for.

Example:

Opinions on exterior styling were mixed; some staffers thought it looked nose-heavy while others found it a welcome deviation from the bulbous shape of previous CR-Vs. Most of us, however, agreed that the dash design felt dated. It's extremely user-friendly, mind you-the classic two-dial instrument panel (all of which, save the speedometer, is actually digital) has been a successful and unambiguous way of communicating information for decades.

And that is the problem with "opinions" by vehicle review geeks.... they are literally all over the place. But what seems to bug them most on interior styling is the new instrument cluster... which frankly they claim looks like the instrument cluster in a 1997 CRV. What a joke of a commment and is clearly demonstrates they did not actually test and use the various digital displays and features on the instrument cluster.

Over all, if you set their geeky peeves aside, they actually rate it as a solid vehicle. Ironically critical of it for being "not modern enough" and being too much like legacy CRVs. LOL... yeah.. well ... when you have a great legacy, incremental design changes and improvements while maintaining all the key points CRV owners have come to expect IS GOOD DESIGN. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

 

I have not driven much of the competition aside from let's say a Forester. I actually had a 20. Did not like it and moved on to a 20 CRV. Just recently I purchased a 23 EX with a bunch of add-ons and I have to say it's a really great car. I will admit at first it did noting for me as you can read in my earlier posts and I even drove one. One on the showroom really caught my eye . Platinum white / dark wheels. This new one grows on you and after reading all the improvements(I like engineering) it's a big step up from gen 5. What stood out at first is Honda's new body architecture which was first introduced in the 22 Civic and is going to be used on all their car based products. Pilot /ridge/Ody are on a new lite truck platform same as MDX The increased stiffness and use of adddtional structural adhesive really pays off. The exterior styling is nice just as the inside they have cleaned it up. The interior was designed to give it a 80/90s vibe put a current spin on it. Love it. It is compact so when I slide in my knee does not hit the lower dash. Like the fact the not every function goes through a massive screen. This works for me and I could care less about screen size. Look at a mdx or rdx and you get my point. I could go on and on about refinments to the engine/cvt or the increased visibility implemented driver and passenger knee airbags plus rear sear air bags. Negatives - cut some features that where standard out increased price. And this is a personal thing for me I ditched the oem tires for something better and it makes even more of a difference. Car rags like MT lost it long ago. I used to read MT in the 90's when they had some really good journalists some of them where engineers. They would really deep dive into a car. Now if does not have a 12 inch tablet sticking out of the cockpit it's a looser