- With standard equipment
- With safety pack
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Find more information in the Rating Validity tab of the assessment
-
See More
![]()
93% -
See More
![]()
83% -
See More
![]()
70% -
See More
![]()
76%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
Driver
Rear Passenger
Driver
Car
Pole
Rear Seat
Front Seat
-
Approaching a stationary car: Left Offset
-
Approaching a stationary car: No Offset
-
Approaching a stationary car: Right Offset
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
outboard
center
outboard *
![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as standard![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option![]()
Not Available
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option-
i-Size CRS
-
ISOFIX CRS
-
Universal Belted CRS
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
Difficult
Safety critical| Seat Position | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Front | 2nd row | 3rd row | ||||
| Passenger | Left | center | Right | Left | Right | |
| Maxi Cosi 2way Pearl & 2wayFix (rearward) (iSize) |  |
|
|
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi 2way Pearl & 2wayFix (forward) (iSize) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Kid X2 i-Size (iSize) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Flex FIX i-Size (iSize) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & FamilyFix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Kid X4 ISOfix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Britax Römer Duo Plus (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Britax Römer KidFix XP (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & EasyBase2 (Belt) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Britax Römer King II LS (Belt) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Britax Römer KidFix XP (Belt) | |
|
|
|
|
|
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
In the frontal offset test, dummy readings of tensile forces indicated marginal protection of the neck for the 10-year dummy. Otherwise, protection of both dummies was good or adequate. In the side barrier test, protection of both child dummies was good and maximum points were scored. The front passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward-facing child restraint to be used in this seating position. Clear information is provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag and the system was rewarded. All of the restraint types for which the CR-V is designed could be properly installed and accommodated, including in the optional third row seats.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 16.8 Pts
Pelvis Impact 3.0 Pts
Leg Impact 6.0 Pts
| System Name | Collision Mitigation Brake System | ||
| Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Operational From | 5 km/h | ||
| PERFORMANCE | | |||
- Day time
- Night time
Day time
-
Adult crossing the road
-
Child running from behind parked vehicles
-
Adult along the roadside
Night time
-
Adult crossing the road
-
Adult along the roadside
-
Approaching a crossing cyclist
-
Cyclist along the roadside
The protection provided by the bonnet to the head of a struck pedestrian was good or adequate over most of its surface, with areas of good and poor performance. Protection of pedestrian's legs was good in all test areas and the CR-V scored maximum points. Protection of pelvis was mixed. The AEB system can detect pedestrians and cyclists, as well as other vehicles. The system performed well in pedestrian tests but was marginal in the more severe cyclist tests.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | Intelligent Speed Limiter |
| Speed Limit Information Function | Camera based |
| Speed Control Function | System advised (accurate to 5km/h) |
| Applies To | Not available | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
|
| Audible | |
|
|
| Occupant Detection | |
|
|
|
|||
| System Name | Road Departure Mitigation |
| Type | LKA (including LDW) |
| Operational From | 72 km/h |
| Performance | |
| Lane Keep Assist | |
| Human Machine Interface | |
| System Name | Collision Mitigation Brake System | |||
| Type | Autonomous Emergency Braking and Forward Collision Warning | |||
| Operational From | 5 km/h | |||
| Additional Information | Supplementary warning and Restraint activation | |||
- Autobrake function only
- Driver reacts to warning
Autobrake function only
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a braking car
Driver reacts to warning
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a braking car
The AEB system gave generally good results in tests of its functionality at highway speeds. The car has a lane assistance system which helps prevent inadvertent drifting out of lane. A camera-based speed assistance system recognises local speed limits and presents the information to the driver, allowing the limiter to be manually set to the appropriate speed. A seatbelt reminder is standard for front and rear seats.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Honda CR-V 2.0 Hybrid, LHD
Body Type - 5 door SUV
Year Of Publication 2019
Kerb Weight 1612kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all CR-Vs
Class Large SUV
Safety Equipment
Note: Other equipment may be available on the vehicle but was not considered in the test year.
![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as standard![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as part of the safety pack![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option or as part of the safety pack![]()
Not available![]()
Not applicable
Fitted to the vehicle as part of the safety packVideos
Rating Validity
Variants of Model Range
| Body Type | Engine | Drivetrain | Rating Applies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LHD | RHD | |||
| 5 door SUV | 1.5 petrol | 4 x 2 |  |
|
| 5 door SUV | 1.5 petrol | 4 x 4 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | 2.0 petrol hybrid* | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | 2.0 petrol hybrid | 4 x 4 | |
|
* Tested variant
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment of the CR-V remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of the driver and passenger. Honda showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions. Protection of the passenger dummy was good for all critical body areas. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the driver and rear passenger was good or adequate for all critical body areas. In the side barrier test, protection of all critical body areas was good and the CR-V scored maximum points. In the more severe side pole impact, dummy readings of rib deflection indicated marginal protection of the chest. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injury in the event of a rear-end collision. However, a geometric assessment of the rear seats indicated poor whiplash protection. The standard-fit autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system performed well in tests at the low speeds, typical of city driving, at which many whiplash injuries are caused.