[Closed] Buying a Honda FRV - anything to watch out for

We have a 57 plate petrol 1.8 version and it is brilliant. Good standard kit although we got the top version with leather and heated seats etc. Loads of room in the front - kinda feels like you are commanding a space ship.

Nothing to note in terms of issues on ours anyway. Like my wife's Honda Jazz, it just seems to go on and on and on and on......

Got an 08 2l diesel. Consumption is a bit crap, rear view is not the best and the windscreen seems to be a magnet for stone chips. Apart from that, its great, mega reliable and well built. 3 seats in the front is great if you have one kid. Older ones seemed to have a pretty tacky interior though.

Prior to buying, I asked an AA patrol guy what he thought of them. He reckoned he hardly ever got called out to Hondas and in his experience the petrol engine was even better than the diesel one.

the 2005 model is very different from the 07/08 model !

my friend has a 2005 petrol great car but heavy on fuel...beware !

The 2.0 petrol will be alot thirstier than you'd expect from the stats, its not the best to drive at speed and the space isn't as much as it looks on the outside.

The free front seat idea is cool though.

I went from a 04 MX5 to a black 2.0 05 petrol FRV. TBH I hated it.

Personally I'd go for a Jazz. I've driven a few variants of those - you can't beat them.

Great on the motorway and for filling with bikes and camping kit - we've had some fine trips in it.
But the width makes driving on narrow streets a pain, plus the rear view is very restricted. We've had two reversing, er, incidents in ours. Voted UK's most accident-prone car in 2011.
[url= http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/honda/fr-v/34826/fr-v-tops-crash-chart ]Survey[/url]
The handling is ok for a family box though it's a heavy beast. Our diesel ok-ish on fuel but friends' 1.7 and 2.0 petrol versions drink it - low 30s round town if you're careful.
Reliability dodgy on the diesel (badly designed clutch slips and wears out double quick and other issues like breaking camchains and blown turbos). The rest of our car has been ok bar an intermittent earth fault.
Would prob go for a Toyota Verso if could make the choice again.

On the accident-prone- Over the tops of Holmfirth I slid a FRV wide on a bend and took a tyre off. I wasn't even trying to drive like a tit, just good progress. The Jazz is quite a bouncy/tinny' ride compared to some but I like it for its nimblenous and its great interior for loading.

As with all Honda's, super reliable 🙂 We had an 05 2.0ltr FRV for 3 trouble free years. Only issue was it was extremely thirsty. 25-30mpg max generally. It was too big for our requirements once the lad didnt need a pushchair anymore, so we now have a 2.2ltr Civic which is fantastic.

Had the mpg down to 20mpg with 3 bikes ontop going to the Alps a couple of years back!
[img] [/img]

Thanks folks - hadn't heard they were particularly thirsty so good to know, although we're lucky to get 30+ out of our old passat, and it'll only do 7 - 8k a year. Accident prone is an interesting one - going to get the mrs to test drive it and make sure she's comfortable with the extra girth (!) The one we are seeing has parking sensors which I hope should help.

re. Jazz - if it could carry 2 adults, 3 kids, a granny and all the associated crap then it might have made it on to the shortlist! I recently got a 2004 civic that I put almost 100 miles a day on and its been great - not the most refined driving experience but like you say nice and nimble. Back seats fold down flat and takes a large full susser with both wheels on. Always had hondas (6 i think? all with over 100k on the clock) - the passat was an anomoly, but has been great.

try the honest john website there is a breakdown on there for pretty much every car listing known faults etc.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/honda/fr-v-2004/

I've had my 54 reg FRV since August 2005. I've never owned a car for more than three years before so that should give you some idea what I think of it.

It's been totally faultless. Such a practical car. I get 30-32 mpg and I'm happy with that considering how I drve it. The only thing I have heard of is noisy clutch pedal. Handling isn't great if pushed and mine has a tendency to under steer quite badly on a particular off camber roundabout near me at anything over 20mph.

In short - I've considered buying a new car for the last 3 years but can't find anything to touch the FRV.

Why would you get a 2.0 N/A petrol engine in a family car? Its not quick and its just thirsty.

Fair enough a honda civic Type R with the 2.0 engine, but a family car?

totally pointless.

Get the 2.2 diesel if you are into biking or you will cry at the shit fuel consumption

I used to have a 300BHP leon cupra and that was a pain for biking, cost me £60 to get to get from newcastle to innerleithen and back. Costs £30 in my new dirty diesel.

Because the smaller 1.7 engine is apparently pretty weak (not i-vtec and belt drive) and only marginally better fuel economy. 1.8 was introduced later I think.
The diesel is a much better option, but at the time we bought our car, equivalent diesels were £2k more, and the fuel savings would require at least 2 years of ownership to recoup (although we did have it for 3 years!).

I don't think it would do enough miles to justify the extra cost of a diesel, and the higher risk of something expensive going wrong in a high mileage diesel doing mainly shorter journeys. Honest John seems to like the 2l petrol (well, in comparison to the 1.7 anyway). Primary consideration is seating space and reliability - engine performance secondary. The few biking trips I get in would be in the civic! Looked at a Touran as well but Mrs was put off by reading lots of niggly issues. Thanks all for your comments.

Why not also look at a Zafira or Corolla Verso?

Or slightly leftfield: Toyota Previa. I'd love one of these.

7-8k miles a year - pointless getting a diesel. Won't save you any money, probably would cost more over the fee years you'll have it. Plus if the inevitable happens with the diesel - turbo or something else goes bang - you'll find its waaaaay more expensive.
If I didn't have a free work car I would have a petrol car if I did 8k miles a year.

Another 5p worth. The 2.0 petrol engine is beautiful but it wants to/needs to rev and isn't great for pulling a tank like the FRV. Diesel for sure the nicer engine in the FRV, loads of low down grunt and better economy - made my choice as soon as I drove one. **But** they are flawed engines – Honda's first diesel - have a google around on iCTDi problems.

Our clutch went at 30k and the friction plate was changed under warranty (in last month of cover thankfully). But then started slipping again 15k later and Honda didn't want to know. Definitely helps with fuel economy tho 🙂 Turbo been whining for a while too, been reading the manual lately...

Mind you, I do know of one that is up to 90k on original clutch and trouble free.

Mind you, I do know of one that is up to 90k on original clutch and trouble free.

Now you know of two.
Original exhaust too.

In fact mine has never even blown a lightbulb. Not one. The only things its ever had are tyres, a new battery last year and new wiper blades. Not bad in 8 years.

Make sure it still has the H badge on the front - after all

"what is the point of owning a Honda if people don't know it's a Honda"

(name that TV show...)

Buy the petrol engine. Modern diesels are great right up until something goes wrong... Then things get ridiculously expensive.

Japanese petrol engines are the best around.... they didn't want to go down the diesel route but European manufactures forced the issue, Honda and Toyota wanted efficient petrol engines and small capacity turbo engines so their first diesel efforts were a bit half hearted.

Like all Honda's do keep an eye on the oil level. They do use a little and I check mine monthly.

At 7-8K a year you'd not make the extra initial purchase price of the diesel back and you'd be looking at potentially bigger bills. The icdti has problems with dual mass flywheels, EGR, cracked manifolds and turbos, although no DPF. Look over at the TypeAccord Forum - same engine- and you get x10 as many diesel faults as petrol, even accounting for slightly more diesels being sold it shows the reliability nicely and for you diesel probably doesn't add up.

I had one icdti which had no problems in +100K and a second which had EGR and turbo problems.

We have a 2.4l accord and it's been completely reliable.

7-8k miles a year - pointless getting a diesel. Won't save you any money, probably would cost more over the fee years you'll have it

That's a flawed argument in used cars. It needn't cost you any more at all, you just end up with an older model. That's only a potential issue if you start dropping to older models.

That's a flawed argument in used cars. It needn't cost you any more at all, you just end up with an older model.

Not really flawed. With the diesel you end up with an older car, that has done more miles. The only saving you make is due to lower fuel costs but at 7K it's probably only a few £2-300 per year (petrol is 10% cheaper), whilst you face potentially bigger bills not only from the complexity of a diesel but also an older car.

http://www.which.co.uk/cars/driving/driver-tools/petrol-vs-diesel/

IME the diesel 2.2l frv only gives about 34/5 mpg combined so the "diesels are more efficient" argument is a bit irrelevant. In hindsight the petrol one would have been a better bet, hardly any difference in consumption, cheaper fuel and all the rest.