Honda CR-V Owners Club Forums banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I currently own a 2002 CR-V and looking to get the 2017 model some time this year. However I noticed a big drop in rear hiproom dimension: 53.5 in vs 49.5 in. I usually have 3 person sitting in the rear seat, do any one of you comment on how tight is the back seat with 3 passengers vs previous model?? :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
When I test drove it looked noticeably smaller than our accord. I looked at the specs to compare and it was a 5 inch decrease from our accord. We never tried the back with three people just a car seat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Pretty strange for Honda to design the new CRV with increased leg room but decreasing the hip room, also the 2017 model is a decrease from the 2016 model (53.1 in vs 49.5 in), thank you for your input
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Looking at 2017 CRV as well, perhaps 2017 Forester.

Looking at specs the Forester has 53" rear hip room and 2017 CRV has 49.5".

Even if look at a honda press release where they compare 2016 vs 2017 CRV most measurements are same or more for 2017 CRV BUT for rear hip room press release says -3.6"

2017 is wider then 2016 so puzzling?!

Was there some reason Honda decreased hip room in new CRV when most other measurements were same or bigger then prior gen?

Would explain why when we sat in 2017 CRV rear seat it seemed bit more snug then 2012 CRV we had.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
The average buyer is probably more concerned with rear leg room than rear hip room. Relatively few people carry three across in the rear on a regular basis. Take it from someone who used to sell cars. Rarely would I get someone who sat in a car on the lot or in the showroom, and immediately remarked that the hip room seemed insufficient. However, you'd hear observations about rear leg room immediately, good or bad. A lot of people would rule out a car quickly if they thought the rear leg room was too skimpy. It's one of those things people notice right away. Ooooh! This has a TON of leg room back here! -or- Man, it is pretty tight in this rear seat!

One other point. Manufacturers are under intense pressure to constantly improve on crash test scores. One way to do this is to increase the distance between the passenger and the vehicle that hits you. Make the door a little thicker, that's more crush space and more room to build in crash resistant structure. If you don't make the vehicle wider, but you increase the side crash resistance, you probably take a smidge of room from the passenger compartment width.

I read a story once about Volvo crash engineering back in the day. They experimented with small increases in door thickness, interior panels, etc, to improve side crash ratings. Small changes made significant differences in passenger injury rates.

Back to my first point. My folks rode in our new CR-V recently. The first thing they mentioned was how generous the rear leg room seemed to them. Again, I can't remember anyone ever shopping at our dealership and test-sitting in a car and griping that the hip room was bad. I don't think it's on most people's radar, in general. People who haul two adults and three kids routinely are often shopping for something with a third row anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
The average buyer is probably more concerned with rear leg room than rear hip room. Relatively few people carry three across in the rear on a regular basis. Take it from someone who used to sell cars. Rarely would I get someone who sat in a car on the lot or in the showroom, and immediately remarked that the hip room seemed insufficient. However, you'd hear observations about rear leg room immediately, good or bad. A lot of people would rule out a car quickly if they thought the rear leg room was too skimpy. It's one of those things people notice right away. Ooooh! This has a TON of leg room back here! -or- Man, it is pretty tight in this rear seat!

One other point. Manufacturers are under intense pressure to constantly improve on crash test scores. One way to do this is to increase the distance between the passenger and the vehicle that hits you. Make the door a little thicker, that's more crush space and more room to build in crash resistant structure. If you don't make the vehicle wider, but you increase the side crash resistance, you probably take a smidge of room from the passenger compartment width.

I read a story once about Volvo crash engineering back in the day. They experimented with small increases in door thickness, interior panels, etc, to improve side crash ratings. Small changes made significant differences in passenger injury rates.

Back to my first point. My folks rode in our new CR-V recently. The first thing they mentioned was how generous the rear leg room seemed to them. Again, I can't remember anyone ever shopping at our dealership and test-sitting in a car and griping that the hip room was bad. I don't think it's on most people's radar, in general. People who haul two adults and three kids routinely are often shopping for something with a third row anyway.
Makes sense.

Thanks for your perspective.

Does make me wonder on prior gen safety since this current gen is wider BUT still lost 3.6" on rear hip room. So they added like 5" to space between passenger and outside?? Width is 1.4" more and then 3.6" less hip room. Yes, I over analyze :)

Was actually able to sit in a 2016 and 2017 today. 2016 more spacious hip and shoulder while 2017 more spacious leg room which is as you rightly say what most folks looking at.

Not carrying 3 passengers in rear seat all the time but enough that it warranted research. The 2017 CRV even with less hip room is one of the more roomier rear seats along with Forester so gonna focus on these two. No third row vehicles for us :)
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top