Just add a cotton/cloth based seat cover will help a lot too even when there are not padded.

Haha....even when one can afford City, Vios, even perodua Ativa and proton S70, already won't qualify for petrol subsidies. There are generally meant for B40.

When one can afford to buy CRV, they likely can afford removal of subsidies without a blink of an eye unless you maxed out budget limit to get CRV. Really not a good idea for those like (me lor, hehe).

Anyway the price difference between E spec (the most value for money, IMO) and RS is at least 25K including some accs, insurance difference, etc. Unlikely any petrol saving from the RS will ever cover the price difference. You buy RS eHev for the specs and hybrid drivetrain (the smoothness of the ride is substantially different from petrol version), not for FC savings (that one only added feature). Many might say they drove almost the same but if you sit on one (eHev) then IMMEDIALTEY drive the petrol version, the butter smooth driving feel of eHev is very obvious and substantial. If you don't compare side by side, it will feel almost the same. Test drive both...at same time, one is friend's and RS is test drive car.

Just like buying LED TVs. If you go shop compare, you will see substantial difference in quality of different brands and model but when you just buy the cheaper one home....you might feel it is actually as good as the more expensive one (that is unless you are those who are really into TVs, audiophile, etc who nickpick on every detail and difference).

If I have the dough, I would go for the RS anytime (assuming I can wait) for the specs and driving experience difference. I can't afford it tho....hahaha considering getting the E-Spec (got the budget) but after considering the pending economic inflation, my age, my lifestyle, my money swallowing kids education, grossly increased health cost aka med insurance, I'm forced to abandon them and downgrade back to City....hahaha.. Big difference, SUV back to smallest sedan in Honda. Even considering Toyota Cross Hybrid but gave that up as well coz if I get that, may as well get the E-spec, at least its my dream SUV...haha, for poorer ppl.

Also test drive eHev and RS petrol version of City. I have to say, when I drove the eHev, I feel nothing special. Sit behind as passenger when my friend drove also feel nothing special. RS specs almost the same for City except for the drivetrain and parking brake/brake hold. However the moment I drove the petrol RS as both driver and later passenger, then I realised the nothing special for eHev is very special, the butter smooth acceleration, the lack of vibration or minimal vibration (even when engine charging turn on), the driving experience and feeling are substantial different vs the petrol version (not totally different coz City and CRV eHev still tuned and pull backed power for efficiency, Civic eHev IS really different tho). In the end, I took the eHev coz of the different driving experience (forget abt petrol saving as that are offset by the 12K pricing difference especially after removal of subsidies). It will be in fact even more expensive in future once you take the resale value (at least in Malaysia) and possible battery change, EV part possible failure/worn in long term. Yet I still took it coz of the drivetrain smoothness, a so-called 1/3 EV experience and the fact that I never really need to worry about FC when I want to use the car to anywhere once subsidies removed. Just missed the wide seats the CRV or even Civic has (all can seat 3 adult pax behind comfortably, with City only 2 pax unless you squeeze hard).

Although this is for City in the end, the eHev experience on CRV test driving gave the exact same feel except even better sound insulation, vibration, engine charging feel....all grossly upgraded over City. Ya, I would get CRV RS anytime just for the driving experience alone and specs (of course) over the petrol if you don't mind the wait and pricing difference. Many would just say, get EV even better for the driving experience but range anxety is real and the charging time wait is real also. So hybrid get the best of both world, for now.

This post has been edited by Cavino: May 27 2024, 09:00 AM

At traffic red light. The petrol version engine vibration is above-average bad.

Other than that, I don't miss the Hybrid.

Still...waiting for my RS...

When did you book ? be patient and preservere, its worth it.

4th of February with no estimated delivery date

just around launch date. you should check with your SA. maybe june or soon?

As I said, you have to drive side by side, IMMEDIATELY after one another then can feel the noticeably driving experience difference.

But then again, some ppl don't bother, feel the same no matter....hahaha.. individual preference.

Not to say turbo not good, very good liao, If not I would not even budget for E-Spec before the long term financial hit my ego...and real life thingy conquered my sense...

It is just different driving experience. Really not the same when drive immediately one after another Of course, once hit highway, tak payah cakap, how can compare to turbo.

Wow bro thanks so much for your very lengthy write-up above. You’re right that the fuel savings is simply a bonus, and I agree. In my financial situation I can comfortably afford this RS Hybrid, and I have yet to test drive it (planning on Thursday or Friday), but I’m really looking forward to testing the refinement and smoothness. I’m quite acquainted with the 1.5T + CVT combo as I’ve been driving the Civic ketam since 2018, and it’s not great.

I am familiar with the turbo and went for a test drive of the hybrid. I wouldn't say there is a night and day difference worthy the extra money and potentially high cost of battery and no spare tires for out of town driving etc

Car reviewers don't have to consider those -ve factors

This post has been edited by touristking: May 27 2024, 05:35 PM

No day and night lar as mentioned, if don't ride immediately one after another, might not feel the difference but the driving feel is so similar yet quite different from each other.

Using the City eHev and petrol have the same exact driving difference, very similar and feel almost same but yet in daily drive for awhile, the driving experience difference is quite substantial (still the same vehicle type, a lot of similarity feel). The CRV eHev eliminated the weakness (noise and power) of City thus amplify the smoothness even more. Both also feel that the car torque are controlled and pull back by the Honda tuning for efficiency instead of power.

Now with Civic eHev, that is a different beast (better) altogether.

Looking at the whole package, of course lar no tire is a great concern, I consider long before I still decided on City eHev vs Petrol, the driving difference is way smoother. Driving the petrol really, in terms of driving experience feel not much different from my 18 years old City (imagine that, in terms of driving satisfaction) but the eHev can feel substantially different. Even now, I can feel eHev is a major upgrade on driving experience vs my old City but the petrol RS, beside the upgraded specs, no difference in driving satisfaction.

I now put a 70mai tyre pump in the car and hope any future possible puncture is not too great. If not, tow truck....
Now with CRV, really have to put in high power tyre pump coz much bigger tyres...hahaha..

For me if value for money still E Spec BUT not really not much different than previous gen drive (sure got upgrade in looks, comfort, sound, etc) but I still consider the RS eHev to be the true 6th Gen CRV (my 2 cents only, all cakap sahaja). Then again, those that buy RS eHev at 200k, you think they think too much on battery replacement cost....most really don't. It'sthe specs, the upgraded looks and the driving smoothness that are the priority (not speaking for anyone, just my own view nia).

The pricing difference for Honda hybrid are likely also due to eHev architecture complexity and advanced dual motor design that are made to enhance driving experience for hybrid. It comes at the cost of more complexity, more parts / cost and chances of part faillure vs Toyota single motor one but I do love the design way more than Toyota same range hybrid architecture but Toyota hybrid are designed to be more lasting, reliable and proven.

This post has been edited by Cavino: May 28 2024, 04:00 PM

People will claim the hybrid is more complicated, I’d say it’s actually LESS complicated than the 1.5T and has less stuff to go wrong. No turbo, no alternator, no starter, no belt driven accessories and the e-CVT (a misnomer, there's actually no transmission in this thing at all) is FAR simpler than the CVT.

You actually have 2 things to take care of, the 2.0 NA petrol engine + the motor. I read at high speed, it's the engine doing the lifting so there probably has to be some mechanical connection.

According to statistic, Hybrid is the most likely to catch fire (petrol engine + electric motor), followed by petrol and lastly the EV is the least (just the electric motor)

This post has been edited by touristking: May 29 2024, 06:48 AM

Actually e-CVT do have a transmission...I found that out, when I look up and saw a transmission fluid changes albeit at much lesser cost and much longer change interval. Then when you read up a little on e-CVT....the transmission have way lesser gears vs the CVT, auto and manual gears transmission as it runs on a single speed. In that sense, yes, lesser chances of failure due to lesser parts and the transmission will last very long but they are still risk for transmission repair and failure via wear and tear but in much longer period.

Hybrid have way less repair in general BUT when a repair is needed especially from the the electrical motor portion, it WILL be very costly, there is no doubt about that. EV has the same problem but with very much higher cost of repair when a failure occur especially in distance future.

eHev has additional clutches system for the engine/transmission connection (when switching to pure engine drive), that is additional complexity over the T hybrid but it does gives better driving experience. That is why, in my opinion H makes better hybrid design meant for driver experience but that also means more complexity and less reliability than T. Cost wise T hybrid is way more reliable, that is the give and take of H vs T design.

Turbo maintenance is a real concern if car kept for long term as the constant high heat will in general shorten engine life. I think that is a given, you added something that boost such great power over the original NA engine and yet can have better FC, something has to go. The forced highly compressed air with massive heat generated in our sometime super hot weather WILL affect engine life and reliability. Stringent requirement of good engine oil with monitored and much shorter engine life and change interval will also add to the cost. More repair will be needed at least over NA engine. Hybrid engine part even lesser repair needed, as mentioned, no alternator, no start, belt driven thingy....

So for me, in terms of engine reliability for long term over Turbo, Hybrid might not be inferior in that matter. It even have an advantage over turbo-based engine at that. It's Atkinson cycle engine while added some complexity and heat over NA engine, will likely last longer than turbo-based engine as it does less work (split work with electrical motors). It is also way more efficient with fixed interval on oil change (no power, we know that but that is where the electric motor comes in to buck up this weakness).

The motor parts will likely last very long without failure...although concern is always there.....it will not fail in long time...but once it does, the repair or replacement will be exorbitant. It is a real fear but likely will be in very far future (of course, you are one of those super unlucky ones, habis or ones that runs very high mileage in short terms) but in reality, how many ppl really keep Hybrid that far to the future. Not many do (and I'm likely one of those that do keep for long term but I keep the mindset I'll cross the bridge when we get there approach). As for battery life, after 8 years to 10 years, with reduced capacity, can change one at abt 10K cost now but in 10 years, likely dropped a lot. Again that is at least 10 years, might have sold the car before that or just budget to have 10k change and a RENEWED fc efficiency as battery load and power will be back to original.

This post has been edited by Cavino: May 29 2024, 08:44 AM

atkinson cycle is not complex. it is just camshaft diff abit. and it does help abit with some fuel air mixture push back to intake manifold during cycle, hence less carbon deposit issue. i think the debate goes on but hybrid sales is blowing off the chart outside of malaysia, the system is much more matured than EV. Honda EHEV is a win and brilliant solution for hybrid, it just drives so well without the whining that u get from toyota. Toyota hybrid really drive like a CVT, but honda drive like normal transmission car. i believe motor wont be more expensive than engine. and motor actually doesnt have any friction also, hence less wear and tear issue.

This post has been edited by ben3003: May 29 2024, 08:59 AM

In theory, yes. My friend and I been having turbo DIESEL and they are reliable with a couple over 300,000 km. But we are VERY stringent on oil change and and the correct type of engine oil. Correct type doesn't mean expensive. In fact, we all been using mineral oil.

Not sure about the Honda 1.5T. But it is hard to detect the turbo lag on this engine

This post has been edited by touristking: May 29 2024, 09:16 AM

Diesel engine always tend to last way longer than petrol engine lor. They are built to be way more robust to handle the high compression.
Petrol engine also has way more detergent that wear them out quicker, petrol engine also runs hotter than diesel, so add turbo in, even way hotter than turbo diesel in general and heat kill the engine faster.

So cannot compare both lar. Not to say turbo petrol cannot last long, just it will shorten the life of engine and components vs NA engine.....in general. Some can last 300k, I have not doubt, read about that but generally, it is a fact that it will have shorten life COMPARED with NA-based engine.

With our weather and current super high heat turbo on CRV and Civic, if use mineral oil to cool the petrol turbo...I don't know how many trips you have to go to SC to change oil...
Cost WILL increase exponentially with mineral oil, not to mentioned if drag a bit somemore with oil losing efficacy, engine damage. So for petrol turbo, anyone read or know about any car manufacturer using mineral oil? I think the risk of damaging the turbo and engine is not worth mineral oil usage. FS can cool and last way longer, and even with that, H turbo usually require oil change that are much shorter than NA engine already.

I believe cannot feel much of turbo lag likely due to the way they tune the CRV to climb up slower than its counterpart for more smoother and comfortable acceleration. Feel like pulling back the CRV power abit but give and take. Actually I don't feel much of turbo lag if any when sitting on my friend's Civic too. Itu S70, can feel....

This post has been edited by Cavino: May 29 2024, 11:00 AM

That could be the reason why the CRV 1.5T doesn't have the quick pickup for the initial 100+ meters. It is a lot slower than the 1.8NA HRV.

I think the AWD model may be even worst and that is the reason I settled for the 2WD version. My guess is, the AWD may drive like a 2WD on Eco mode.

Great discussion here guys happy to see an active forum thread...

Shifting the topic back to V/RS creature comforts as I'm going to test drive on Thurs/Fri, is there anything I should be looking for in particular?

My current list includes:
* Material build quality, fit and finish
* Road noise insulation and tire noise
* 360° camera resolution
* Seat comfort
* Body roll when turning/cornering

1. One is AWD and the other 2WD. So check out the difference in stability cornering etc.
2. Road and tire noise difference between the 2. Ignore the engine noise because RS engine wouldn't be working in town.
3. Suspension and ride comfort. RS would be heavier so may have stiffer spring affecting ride comfort. Check the tire pressure because for some reason, common to find some dealer having the wrong pressure affecting handling and ride
4. RS drives better in town. V should drive better or accelerate better above ~110kph. See which you prefer.


This post has been edited by touristking: May 29 2024, 03:58 PM

Material and build quality, I like all except the leather
360 camera, its nice to have, quality is not bad but not good either,, only good thing is that anytime the car detected any object near you, the camera will turn on
With this 360 cam, sometime it will confius you more, esspecially during reverse

If you have the budget, and time to wait,, go way up to RS,, dont take AWD,, just settle for E

For pick up,, AWD is lazy from the start

What i really dont like with my V,, is that when we glide downhill, the car will hold the gear and maintain RPM for engine breaking,, not sure about other specs

Overall from my G5 upgrade to this G6,, Im happy

This post has been edited by Old1030: May 29 2024, 07:35 PM