Honda has topped its facelifted HR-V range with an RS model. Can it excite amid a renewed competition?
What’s new?
After being on the market for three years in its current generation, the Honda HR-V has received its mandatory facelift.
The visual changes are minor, though, including restyled front grille, bumper design and a small bit on the boot cover.And for the first time, there’s a RS version sitting on the top of the range as tested here.
Bespoke elements comprise of black-coloured plastics around the vehicle, full LED headlights and 17-inch wheels.
Two driver-assist technologies have arrived in the HR-V including automatic braking at low speeds and lane-watch system to clearly observe what’s happening on the left side of the vehicle when driving.
Filled with six airbags, the RS costs 1.119 million baht. There’s also the regular-look EL going for 1.059 million baht and stripped-down, entry-level E asking for 949,000 baht.
The sole engine on offer remains the same: E85-capable 141hp 1.8-litre petrol mated to CVT automatic transmission driving just the front wheels.
Some notable players have joined the B-segment SUV fray just after the pre-facelift HR-V was launched three years ago including the price-cutting MG ZS, style-led Mazda CX-3 (just refreshed last week) and the hybrid-powered Toyota CH-R. Is this Honda still the default choice?
What’s cool?
When the HR-V first came into existence, it clearly stood out with capacious and airy seating for all and highly versatile boot.
That remains the case today in spite of those new players, although the ZS isn’t that far behind in this particular facet. The C-HR has the space but feels claustrophobic; the CX-3 falters whichever way you look at its interior functionality.
Even though the engine has been carried over, it does a respectable job in its own right by delivering linear and sufficient performance. Although not as spirited as in the 156hp 2.0-litre petrol CX-3, the HR-V feels more lively to drive than the 140hp 1.8-litre petrol C-HR due to its lighter overall weight.
And thanks to the RS treatment, the HR-V manages to shed away some of its blandness on the catwalk.
What’s not?
Yes, the HR-V in RS uniform looks quite OK in pure isolation, but it simply lacks the styling panache of the CX-3 and C-HR. You probably needn’t ask about the HR-V in regular-looking form.
The same can be said for the HR-V’s interior which, despite its tidy ergonomics, looks bland everywhere.
The fonts on the instrument panel also look so old-fashioned.
The HR-V steered and rode quite well during its inception, but the renewed opposition has exposed some flaws now.
The ride, for one, isn’t that absorbent at low speeds and body control is somehow lacking on the highway.
Also, there’s lots of road noise penetrating into the HR-V’s cabin when cruising. The C-HR does a significantly better job here.
Like the CX-3 and C-HR, the HR-V’s starting price isn’t devised to lure punters of the ZS, which can be had for 200k less. But to be fair, the ZS is handicapped by an underpowered 1.5-litre petrol motor and an unfancied four-speed automatic.
Buy or bye?
When we drove all of the HR-V’s aforementioned competitors each time, it was always summarised that the Honda was the one to go for if utility was all you were looking for. Today, we stand by it.
But if you’re open to other ideas, there are so many reasons to consider any of this competitors. If you don’t need a family on board, the C-HR has hybrid economy and the CX-3 driving fun with both having visual zest, as well. And if you like a coaxing and reasonably roomy interior, there’s the ZS to ponder (and ponder).
All said and done, the HR-V isn’t necessarily the default choice anymore thanks to a more interesting market.
