Which Honda CR-V engine is better?

At a glance, the best choice depends on what you value most: sharper highway performance or the strongest fuel economy. The CR-V is offered with two main powertrains today—a turbocharged 1.5-liter engine and a hybrid setup—and each has its own strengths and trade-offs.

The Honda CR-V currently gives buyers two core options: a 1.5-liter turbocharged inline-4 and a Hybrid system that pairs a 2.0-liter Atkinson-cycle engine with electric motors. This article breaks down how they perform, what they cost to own, and which type of driver each powertrain suits best.

Two powertrains in the CR-V

The following quick specs highlight what each engine brings to the table.

1.5L turbocharged engine

• Approximate output: about 190 horsepower and 179 lb-ft of torque


• Drivetrain options: available with front-wheel drive (FWD) or all-wheel drive (AWD); transmission is a continuously variable transmission (CVT)


• Fuel economy: typically around the high-20s to low-30s mpg combined, depending on drivetrain and trim


• Character: brisk acceleration, especially at higher speeds, with solid highway passing power


• Fuel type: regular gasoline (87 octane) is generally recommended

The turbocharged option is valued for its stronger highway performance and quicker response when you need to merge or pass, but it can be slightly less fuel-efficient in stop-and-go driving compared with the hybrid.

Hybrid powertrain

• Approximate output: around 204 horsepower combined (gasoline engine plus electric motors)


• Drivetrain: eCVT with electric motors; all-wheel drive is typically standard on most hybrid trims


• Fuel economy: roughly 40 mpg combined in EPA estimates, with better results in city and mixed driving


• Character: smooth, quiet operation with strong off-idle torque and refined city driving


• Fuel type: uses regular gasoline; no plug-in capability

The hybrid emphasizes efficiency and smooth, refined daily driving, particularly in urban and suburban conditions, while sacrificing some of the turbo’s highway punch.

Performance and efficiency on the road

In real-world driving, the turbocharged engine delivers quick response and confident highway acceleration, which many drivers associate with a more traditional gasoline-powered feel. The hybrid, by contrast, excels in stop-and-go conditions, delivering quiet operation and excellent fuel economy, especially at lower speeds where electric propulsion can do much of the work.

EPA estimates give a practical baseline for expectations: the turbo CR-V generally lands in the high-20s to around 30 mpg combined, whereas the Hybrid tends to target about 40 mpg combined. Actual results depend on your driving pattern, terrain, and whether you choose FWD or AWD.

Ownership costs and reliability

Ownership considerations extend beyond sticker price to fuel costs, maintenance, and long-term reliability. Both powertrains share Honda’s reputation for solid reliability, but their operating costs can diverge over time.

• Fuel costs: the Hybrid typically saves more on fuel over time, especially for urban commuters or frequent short trips; the turbo may incur higher fuel use if you do a lot of city driving


• Maintenance: routine maintenance is similar for both, but the Hybrid’s electric components add battery-related warranty considerations


• Warranty and reliability: Honda generally offers strong warranties; battery warranties for the Hybrid are designed to cover the hybrid system for a substantial period

Consider your typical miles per year, driving conditions, and local fuel prices when weighing total cost of ownership between the two powertrains.

Which engine should you choose?

To decide which engine fits your life best, weigh your daily driving patterns and priorities. If you often drive on highways or enjoy quicker overtaking power and don’t mind paying a bit more at the pump, the 1.5L turbo is a solid choice. If your emphasis is maximum fuel economy, especially for city commuting, and you value a smooth, quiet ride with strong low-end response, the Hybrid is typically the stronger option. Budget considerations, warranty coverage, and regional availability can also influence the decision.

• Turbo is better for: frequent highway driving, sharper acceleration, and a traditional gasoline feel


• Hybrid is better for: city and mixed driving, best-in-class fuel economy, and quiet, refined operation


• Both options: share solid Honda reliability; AWD availability varies by trim and powertrain

Test-driving both configurations is the best way to gauge which character you prefer and which fits your daily routines and financial picture.

Summary

There is no single “best” CR-V engine for everyone. The turbocharged 1.5-liter delivers stronger highway performance and solid efficiency, while the Hybrid offers exceptional fuel economy and smooth daily driving. Your choice should reflect how you drive most—highway versus city—and how you value upfront cost, running costs, and ownership experience. Both powertrains maintain Honda’s reputation for reliability, so with a careful test drive and a look at your annual fuel costs, you can pick the one that suits you best.

Which Honda CR-V is most reliable?

The most reliable Honda CR-V years are generally considered to be models from 2017 to 2022, particularly those with the 2.4L engine, while the 2006 and earlier models with the older engines are also highly reliable. However, avoid the 2017-2020 models with the 1.5L turbocharged engine due to potential head gasket issues. 
Reliable model years

• 2017-2022: Widely considered to be reliable, with many owners reporting high satisfaction. The 2016 model is also praised for its reliability. 
• 2006: This year is frequently cited as one of the most reliable due to its simplicity and lack of modern infotainment issues. The only major concern is the Takata airbag recall, which should have been addressed. 
• 2007-2019: These years, especially those with the 2.4L engine, are seen as very reliable. 

Years to avoid

• 2017-2020 (with 1.5L turbo engine): Some owners and mechanics report potential problems with head gaskets on these models, so it is advisable to stay away from the 1.5L turbo engine if possible.
• 2017: Some owners reported alignment issues with the 2017 model. 

Key considerations

• Engine: The 2.4L engine is generally seen as more reliable than the 1.5L turbocharged engine. 
• Maintenance: Proper and consistent maintenance is crucial for the longevity of any vehicle, regardless of the model year. 
• Trim level: The EX or Touring trims are good options for those seeking a good balance of features and reliability, says Brickell Honda. 

Which CR-V to stay away from?

You should be wary of the Honda CR-V models from 2007–2009 and 2017–2019, as these years are frequently cited for significant issues like HVAC failures, engine problems, and electrical glitches. Other models to approach with caution include 2011 (excessive oil consumption) and 2014-2015 (engine vibrations).
 
Years with more reported issues

• 2007–2009: This generation experienced issues with HVAC systems, paint, and airbag malfunctions. 
• 2011: Known for excessive oil consumption, which can lead to engine damage if not addressed. 
• 2014–2015: Prone to engine vibrations, especially at idle. The 2015 model also had issues with the new CVT transmission. 
• 2017–2019: The first years of the fifth generation had a significant problem with gasoline diluting the engine oil, which can lead to serious engine damage. Some models also reported electrical problems. 

Important considerations

• Engine oil dilution: This was a major issue for the 2017 and 2018 models with the 1.5L turbo engine, as gas could mix with the oil, reducing its lubricating properties. 
• HVAC failures: Common in the 2007 model, with early and expensive AC compressor failures being frequently reported. 
• Vibrations: Specifically, the 2014 and 2015 models had noticeable engine vibrations, particularly at low speeds or idle. 
• Excessive oil consumption: The 2011 model is notorious for this, which can cause major engine problems if ignored. 

How reliable is the Honda CR-V 1.5 turbo engine?

The Honda CR-V 1.5L turbo engine is generally considered reliable with above-average dependability ratings, but it has some specific issues that owners should be aware of. Common problems include fuel dilution in the oil in cold weather, carbon buildup on intake valves, and potential head gasket failures, though the latter is more likely with lower-octane fuel or due to detonation. Proper maintenance, like using the correct oil and taking longer drives to fully warm the engine, can help mitigate these issues.
 
Potential issues

• Fuel dilution: In colder weather, short trips may not fully warm up the engine, leading to unburnt fuel mixing with the engine oil. 
• Carbon buildup: As a direct-injection engine, the 1.5T is prone to carbon deposits on the intake valves, which can cause performance issues if not addressed. 
• Head gasket failure: While less common than in some other Honda models with this engine, head gasket failure can occur, often linked to detonation from using low-octane fuel. Signs include coolant loss with no visible leaks and misfires on a cold start. 
• Wastegate issues: Some owners have reported a rattling noise from the wastegate, which can be a precursor to loss of boost pressure or power. 

How to improve reliability

• Perform regular maintenance: Follow the recommended maintenance schedule, especially for oil changes, and use the correct type of synthetic oil. 
• Avoid excessive short trips: Make longer drives when possible to ensure the engine oil fully warms up, which can help prevent fuel dilution. 
• Use high-quality fuel: Use the recommended octane fuel to prevent detonation that can lead to head gasket issues. 
• Consider professional cleaning: Have the intake valves professionally cleaned (e.g., walnut blasting) every 50,000-70,000 miles to prevent carbon buildup. 

Which Honda engine is better, 2.4 or 1.5 turbo?

The turbo option provides a few extra horsepower but offers slightly less torque than the naturally aspirated 2.4L engine. When comparing EPA milage estimates, the difference is only a couple miles in favor of the 1.5L, so nothing dramatic.