[TusharK]

Honda has started accepting pre-bookings for the BS6-compliant WR-V. The booking amount has been set at Rs. 21,000.



The WR-V facelift comes with a new grille that has horizontal slats and a chrome insert. The car has LED projector headlamps with integrated LED daytime running lights and position lamps. At the rear, the WR-V gets C-shaped LED tail lamps. It also comes with an electric sunroof.

The refreshed WR-V is expected to be offered with BS6-compliant 1.2-litre petrol and 1.5-litre diesel engine options. Both engines are likely to retain the 5-speed manual gearbox.

The Honda WR-V facelift is expected to be launched in April 2020.

Link to Team-BHP News

[pannags]

Originally Posted by TusharK

The refreshed WR-V is expected to be offered with BS6-compliant 1.2-litre petrol and 1.5-litre diesel engine options. Both engines are likely to retain the 5-speed manual gearbox.

Old wine, in the same old bottle, with a new cork that's barely visible!

Sorry for the rant, utterly disappointing although I knew this was coming!

[karan0009]

What pulls back Honda from plonking that beautiful 1.5 L engine in the WRV. It is definitely a missed opportunity from Honda.

Honda management needs to realize that City has moved a step forward in terms of pricing. WRV with 1.5 L motor & an auto gearbox can bring magic numbers.

[rahulcmoulee]

A good car in desperate need of a better engine. The 1.5 I-VTEC is a perfect fit for the WR-V and paired with an automatic gearbox, it could garner a lot more sales. Why are Honda so reluctant to offer the 2 things this car needs the most.

[Punatic]

Honestly, even the 1.2 litre i-VTEC is acceptable for an urban, commuter, compact-SUV (if such a segment exists) provided it comes with the CVT. But if its refreshed version also comes with only the manual transmission, they're precluding half the sales to people looking to buy a Honda in the first place.

I genuinely thought that with the Jazz seemingly dropped silently, we'll see at least the petrol CVT WRV - the worthies at Honda might not consider the diesel CVT, because by their twisted logic that'll eat into the sales of the Amaze - but they've disappointed again.

Unless they've something else up their sleeves?

[Rocketscience]

Originally Posted by Punatic

Honestly, even the 1.2 litre i-VTEC is acceptable for an urban, commuter, compact-SUV (if such a segment exists) provided it comes with the CVT. But if its refreshed version also comes with only the manual transmission, they're precluding half the sales to people looking to buy a Honda in the first place.

Don't mean to offend but 1.2 litre engine in this car is the most lethargic engine i have ever driven in my life (and my first car was i20 petrol which was only marginally better), i have driven this car quite extensively since one of my friend owns it and otherwise it is a decent car with identical mechanicals to City but with better ride, the engine on the other hand has extremely poor bottom end which makes it a pain to drive it in the city, there is a feeling like one is driving a car with handbrake on, the mid range is no better and very lazy too.
You have to work very, very hard to extract any kind of performance from this engine, which might be possible on an open road at the expense of substantial dip in the fuel economy but not in everyday scenarios least of all in the city.

There are seriously much better options and lots of them to choose from whatever one's requirement may be.

[Durango Dude]

Missed opportunity for Honda, as always, they need to get the 1.5L iVTEC/CVT combo for this and sales will go through the roof. At least get the diesel/CVT combo from the Amaze.

[Punatic]

Originally Posted by Rocketscience

Don't mean to offend but 1.2 litre engine in this car is the most lethargic engine i have ever driven in my life

No offence taken, and thank you for your discretion. I'm sure you're right of course, having never driven this car myself, though I have driven the Amaze and the Jazz that carry the same engine, and they seemed adequate for their purpose - the typical sub 4m concoctions that they are. Personally, I find the lack of automatic the bigger blunder than the smaller engine, though I don't support the smaller-engine strategy at all.

Originally Posted by Rocketscience

You have to work very, very hard to extract any kind of performance from this engine, which might be possible on an open road at the expense of substantial dip in the fuel economy but not in everyday scenarios least of all in the city.

Agreed. Smaller engines are worse for fuel economy in my experience too, and their lower taxation is a policy worth abandoning at the earliest.

Originally Posted by Rocketscience

There are seriously much better options and lots of them to choose from whatever one's requirement may be.

Undeniably! But I myself would perhaps at least consider the WR-V with CVT; without the automatic, it will sadly be DOA.

[Rocketscience]

Originally Posted by Punatic

Agreed. Smaller engines are worse for fuel economy in my experience too, and their lower taxation is a policy worth abandoning at the earliest.

Well, i wont attribute the engine being small on its own to be the problem, more like the implementation, i found the same engine to be much less of a pain in Brio, the WRV with its additional weight is what killed the engine.

The same way i20 feels lethargic and grand i10 and especially the older i10 with 1.2 Kappa 2 does not. The older i10 is opposite infact and the engine really shines there. (Weight plays a bigger role when it comes to smaller engines)

Honda's 1.2 on its own in my experience does not have a good low end or mid range performance as compared to Maruti's K12 and Hyundai's Kappa 2, that combined with extremely tall gearing and very heavy weight vis a vis displacement just brought forward and accentuated those weaknesses to unbelievable levels.
In one instance i was driving the WRV with 5 people on board and AC at full blast on a hot June afternoon on an incline and i was so bored of it being super sluggish in the rest of the drive that i just decided to revv it to its redline in 2nd gear when i got to that inclined empty patch just to relieve some of that frustration, the car literally took eons to revv there and it took so long and got so noisy that everyone in the car looked at me as if i was a maniac and begged me to upshift and not kill the engine.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by pannags

Old wine, in the same old bottle, with a new cork that's barely visible!

It's actually the standard "facelift" template followed by most car makers, and has proven a success in rejuvenating interest around a model that has been around for ~3 years.

Originally Posted by karan0009

What pulls back Honda from plonking that beautiful 1.5 L engine in the WRV. It is definitely a missed opportunity from Honda.

Boggles the mind . But what indicates serious problems in strategy at Honda is that there is NO automatic variant at all on the WR-V. This, in a market that is strongly moving to ATs, and from a company that has traditionally offered ATs in all its cars. Honda has the 1.2L AT combo ready, as it does the 1.5L AT & 1.5 Diesel AT. Either of those could seriously beef up the WR-V's presence.

Originally Posted by Rocketscience

The same way i20 feels lethargic and grand i10 and especially the older i10 with 1.2 Kappa 2 does not. The older i10 is opposite infact and the engine really shines there. (Weight plays a bigger role when it comes to smaller engines)

Nicely put .

[Zinda]

Originally Posted by Rocketscience

Well, i wont attribute the engine being small on its own to be the problem, more like the implementation, i found the same engine to be much less of a pain in Brio, the WRV with its additional weight is what killed the engine.

Absolutely! And then Honda atleast could have made up for it with a modern Automatic Transmission (read GT-TSi), but none of the Premium Japs have that enthusiasm for the Indian market.

[rahulcmoulee]

Originally Posted by Rocketscience

Well, i wont attribute the engine being small on its own to be the problem, more like the implementation, i found the same engine to be much less of a pain in Brio, the WRV with its additional weight is what killed the engine.

The same way i20 feels lethargic and grand i10 and especially the older i10 with 1.2 Kappa 2 does not. The older i10 is opposite infact and the engine really shines there. (Weight plays a bigger role when it comes to smaller engines)

Given that the WR-V is actually a bit heavier than the City makes it even more puzzling as to why they would go with the 1.2 instead of the 1.5. The 1.5 is a direct fit as it shares its platform with the City.

The only logical reason I can see for this is the lower tax slab the 1.2 would fall into. But even still it feels like a decision that has backfired.

[Nithesh_M]

The 1.5 would put the WRV right into Seltos/Creta price range which would kill any sales they can get out of the Jazz platform. Who would spend Seltos money on an older car that's a size smaller?

[Liverpool]

I have driven the jazz. Seriously a lethargic engine. Pain to drive. I wrote to Honda about the issue when you want to move but the car simply wouldn’t respond to throttle inputs. The 1.2L ivtec is good on the Brio, but not at all suitable on the jazz and WRV. I totally agree with others here that the 1.5L would have been a dynamite combo. With the 1.2L it’s same as putting the M800 796cc into a mark 4 ambassador.

How I wish Honda would realize that fuel economy isn’t everything. The car and the driver should connect. They either want to shut down operations here in India or are simply having a horrible management team. I wonder if they take the customer feedback seriously. How many of you agree that the car-engine combo on the WRV is not safe enough?

Wake up Honda, you are known to produce some of the best engines. Give us one. Before the oil runs dry. We are possibly the last surviving petrolheads. Let us growl. Let us run free. One last run.

[Slickshift99]

Honda WR-V is still the best vfm car in its segment maybe due to its low sales figures or loosing competetion. People just dont consider it to be a crossover or a compact-suv but more as a spacious hatchback due to its stance on road. still a great car ignoring the A-pillar visibility issues and the upright rear seats that tend to get uncomfortable for longer drives.