Renault Captur v Honda HR-V 2016 Comparison

Renault Captur Dynamique v Honda HR-V VTi-L ADAS
Comparison Test

The new breed of light SUVs promises a threat to the ruling small hatchback class. Generally more versatile, handy around town with higher-set driving positions and surprisingly accommodating, the pragmatic, front-drive-only SUVs make a lot of sense. How do the premium versions of two relative newcomers, the $27,990 Renault Captur Dynamique and the ADAS safety pack-equipped $33,990 Honda HR-V VTi-L, compare?

As the acronym SUV (Sports Utility Vehicle) becomes more and more obscure in its actual meaning, the new breed of light “SUV” contenders is – maybe – starting to create a new template for what a small car should be.

Buying a light SUV, you are not choosing a scaled-down off-roader with 4x4 capabilities.

In effect, what you are buying equates to a small hatchback in most ways, except it has (usually) more load-carrying ability as well as the perceived advantages of slightly elevated seating that not only gives the driver better eyeball contact with other road users, but also helps in the dissemination of legroom throughout the cabin.

There are also the benefits of a compact footprint for nifty around-town manoeuvrability, as well as a certain amount of frugality when it comes to running costs.

If the idea of a light SUV puzzled us at first, it’s rapidly becoming clear that these versatile mites actually do make sense. A lot of sense.

Captur vs HR-V
Among the hot contenders in the segment are the very French, Renault Clio-based Captur and the almost-generic light SUV, the Honda Jazz-based HR-V.

Ensconced among the likes of Ford’s EcoSport, Holden’s Trax and Mazda’s CX-3, the new-ish contenders further flesh out the light SUV concept with a combination of style, refinement and overall abilities to hammer home the idea that the breed just might develop to the point where it becomes the generic small car.

Dispensing with the wall of hype manufacturers build around new models, the Honda and the Renault appear at first glance to be close competitors in terms of overall size, spec levels and performance capabilities. The biggest difference is that Honda has priced its HR-V above the Captur – from $2000 at base level to as much as $6000 more at the top end of the range.

The top-spec Dynamique Captur is tagged, before on-road costs, at $27,990 where you must fork out $32,990 for the VTi-L version of the HR-V – or $33,990 with the optional ADAS safety pack as fitted to the test car.

But first impressions don’t tell the full story. It’s possible to start wiping away a lot, if not all of the premium price attached to the VTi-L HR-V by considering its safety credentials and its standard equipment list.

Dollar deals
Over the Renault’s standard kit, the ADAS-pack VTi-L Honda comes with a suite of electronic safety aids including forward collision warning, lane departure warning and a city-brake system that prevents or minimises the effects of front-to-rear collisions at lower speeds. Honda also throws in a sunroof, LED (low beam) headlights and little niceties such as an auto-dipping rear-view mirror and a reversing camera that pops up an image on the LCD screen when the left indicator is actuated to give a better view of what might be blind-siding you.

The Renault’s main claim to fame is the standard inclusion of sat-nav (in the base level Expression as well) and an auto-tilting mirror, also on the passenger’s side, that flips down when the car is in reverse to help keep the wheels out of contact with the kerb while parking.

Both come with climate-control, keyless idle-stop, rear-view cameras and parking sensors (rear only for the Renault, both ends for the Honda), while the Captur compensates for its lack of part-leather trim – as fitted to the VTi-L Honda – with the availability of removable, washable and very groovy seat covers.

Room to move
Slipping inside the supposedly similar-size cabins of the Captur and HR-V tells a significant story: Whatever Renault may claim about the accommodating nature of the Captur, it’s nowhere near as spacious as the cleverly thought out Honda.

Both cars offer pretty good, manually adjustable front seats and there’s no criticism of shoulder or overall headroom, but the HR-V takes the packaging technology of the Jazz and lifts it to new levels. It’s streets ahead in what it offers rear-seat passengers.

Compared with the slightly-cramped Renault it’s almost limo-like – and there’s plenty of foot room too.

There’s also a much bigger, more easily accessed and generally more convivial load area.

Renault actually claims there’s more – substantially more – load space in the Captur than the HR-V, but that certainly doesn’t show up, either when loading into the boot, or running a tape measure over the important dimensions.

The Honda measures substantially more in terms of tailgate height and width as well as load area length, and equals the Renault in the floor-to-ceiling measurement – and that’s when the Captur’s variable-floor lid is removed.

Although the HR-V scores with its quick, single-fold “Magic” backrest which provides a fully-flat load area in seconds, we did like the Renault’s bi-level rearmost floor with its out of sight storage area and the sliding rear seat – even if it wasn’t enough to convince us it’s the better cargo-carrier of the two.

Inside story
The Captur and HR-V are worlds apart in terms of interior presentation, perhaps reflecting that slightly different demographics were in mind during development.

Where the Captur brings an effusive, deliberately youthful charm with lots of bright colours and a generally extroverted look, the HR-V is much more restrained and conservative – strangely enough almost European by comparison with other Hondas.

But the upshot is that the Renault can appear almost cheap in some of its detail treatment, such as the clearly-plastic inserts on the steering wheel and the generally hard-touch nature of the entire instrument panel. It’s strong on design, but weak in terms of finish.

The Honda on the other hand has a quality look that makes it feel immediately more cosy and cosseting.

Where the Renault’s dash and door furniture is almost resolutely hard and unyielding – even the door armrests irritate, rather than cushion the elbows – Honda has gone to great pains to soften everything. This extends to the feel of the controls and the soft padding in all places you are likely to  touch – including the front centre armrest-cubby the Captur doesn’t have.

Of course the Captur’s standard touch-screen sat-nav is a big plus, although the single USB port (the Honda has two) looks a little silly located above the colour screen, where any plugged-in cable is bound to hang down and partly obscure the display. And the Renault offers only one 12-volt power socket where the HR-V has three distributed around the car.

On the other hand, Honda persists with its optional app-based, iPhone-only sat-nav system with its clunky operation and unsightly (and not cheap) cables littering the front cabin.

Although the Renault lacks a rear head bag, it still gets a five-star safety rating, equalling the Honda – although the latter must be looked on more favourably with its full-length curtain airbags and, in ADAS form, the impressive list of new-generation safety aids.

Road warriors
On the road, the Captur immediately feels smaller, lighter (it is, by more than 150kg) and louder. It tends towards the sporty spectrum with a pleasant exhaust thrum emanating from the minuscule 88kW/190Nm 1.2-litre four-cylinder turbo-petrol engine and the feeling of direct engagement that invariably comes with a twin-clutch six-speed gearbox.

With 105kW on offer, the normally-aspirated 1.8-litre Honda engine pumps out a bit more power, but its 172Nm of torque drops behind the Captur. The CVT transmission is always there, however, to give instant response whatever the speed. But though it generally avoids the steady, shrieking behaviour that characterises many CVTs at full-bore acceleration, it’s still no snappy, sporty transmission.

Both are front-drive only and share a suitably competent ride-handling compromise with responsive electrically assisted steering – slightly lighter and quicker in the Captur. At 10.4-metre kerb-to-kerb it also turns sharper than the HR-V’s 10.6 metres

Economy testing confirmed that the Captur is indeed the more economical of the two, even if our ultra city-centric, fairly short test regime saw the Captur thirstily imbibing 9.8l/100km and the HR-V 15.6l/100km. Past experiences have seen us recording 7.3l/100km and 8.3l/100km respectively, although both are well short of the 5.4l/100km and 6.9l/100km official claims. Part of the Captur’s advantage is blunted though by the fact Renault asks for a diet of 95 RON unleaded as a minimum. The Honda is happy to run on regular unleaded.

After sale
The Renault scores with its five-year/unlimited-km warranty (including roadside assist) which is well in excess of the three years/100,000km offered with the Honda. The HR-V also asks for servicing every 12 months, or at 10,000km, where the Captur has a 12-month/15,000km requirement.

Both offer capped-price servicing, but here the Honda is the more generous. Covering a period of 10 years or 100,000km, the plan charges $284 for the first service and $298 for subsequent visits where Renault charges $299 per service, but only for three years or 45,000km.

The verdict
So, if you’re in the market for a light “SUV” able to essentially mimic the capabilities of a nominally larger small hatchback and you’ve narrowed the choice down to high-spec versions of the Renault Captur and Honda HR-V, which is the better pick?

Well, if your criteria includes passenger and luggage carrying capacity, the best possible levels of safety technology and a tangible sense of quality, there is no question that the ADAS pack VTi-L HR-V scores higher on all counts than the Captur Dynamique.

In all important respects it’s a no-brainer. On the road, there’s little to differentiate other than the Captur’s slightly sportier essence and the generally quieter progress of the HR-V (with the occasional exception of the CVT transmission).

Although the Renault does offer lower pricing, funky style and standard sat-nav as strong enticements you don’t get a sunroof, or the electronic safety aids that come with the top-spec HR-V. The only thing you are left with is more cash in your pocket.

For sheer class, outstanding packaging, high levels of safety and general on-road competence it’s hard to go past what must come close to being the pride of Honda’s current fleet.

2016 Honda HR-V VTi-L ADAS pricing and specifications:
Price: $33,990 (plus on-road costs)
Engine: 1.8-litre four-cylinder petrol
Output: 105kW/172Nm
Transmission: Continuously variable
Fuel: 6.9L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 160g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety Rating: Five-star ANCAP

What we liked:
>> Tangible quality feel
>> Safety tech
>> Interior space

Not so much:
>> Negative sides of CVT
>> Thirstier
>> More expensive

2016 Renault Captur Dynamique pricing and specifications:
Price: $27,990 (plus on-road costs)
Engine: 1.2-litre four-cylinder turbo-petrol
Output: 88kW/190Nm
Transmission: Six-speed dual-clutch
Fuel: 5.4L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 6.9g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety Rating: Five-star ANCAP

What we liked:
>> Sporty handling
>> Interior style
>> Punchy turbo engine

Not so much:
>> Interior quality
>> Cargo capacity
>> Less high-tech safety