It’s easy to assume that matching a 1.6-litre diesel engine with an SUV results in sluggish performance, but don’t make that mistake with the CR-V.
It may be a tad slower getting from 0-62mph than some of its rivals, but not to the extent that I want to cut a hole in the floor to give it a Flintstone-style performance boost.
The CR-V features the same lightweight 1.6-litre engine found in the Civic.
It comprises an aluminium cylinder head joined to an open deck aluminium block, which means it weighs 47kg less than the 2.2-litre engine it replaced in the Civic. Of course, the CR-V retains the 2.2 i-DTEC option.
All the individual components have been redesigned to minimise their weight and size and advanced production techniques have helped reduce weight even further.
It all adds up to CO2 emissions of 119g/km, equating to an 18% benefit-in-kind rate for a 20% taxpayer, while achieving 0-62mph in 11.2 seconds.
Mazda, which has embraced the weight-saving ethos through its Skyactiv technology, unsurprisingly trumps the CR-V with the 2.2-litre diesel CX-5.
CO2 emissions are the same at 119g/km, but the Mazda takes 9.2 seconds to get from 0-62mph – two seconds less than the CR-V.
Both the CR-V and CX-5 compare well to the 2.0-litre diesel BMW X3, which has emissions of 135g/km and accelerates from 0-62mph in 9.9 seconds.
Again, the X3 is slightly quicker from a standing start than the Honda, but that’s not to say that driving the CR-V leaves you somehow short-changed.
It has performed well both on the motorway and in town, but perhaps there is one downside to the 1.6-litre variant and that’s fuel economy.
The temptation is to try and claw back performance by working the engine harder. That has the potential to detract from the official combined 62.8mpg.