So, I can now talk about the actual experience of driving the new CR-V.
The first thing you'll notice when you see the new CR-V in person is that it appears to be a much larger vehicle, but isn't actually. The side windows are much taller than the previous model, which makes the vehicle itself have more visual weight. For the average FinalGear poster, that's not a good thing, but for some reason, SUV buyers love feeling huge. Something else that immediately stands out when you're first looking at the vehicle is the design of the headlamps and taillights. In pictures, they just look a little Volvo-ish, but in person, there are a lot of little details that set the CR-V apart. For example, the top of the rear taillights arc outward and to the inside of the car to form the basis of a rear spoiler. All-in-all, it's a much cleaner design than Hondas of late have been.
Stepping inside, the first thing that jumps out is a huge amount of headroom, much more than you'd expect. The previous CR-V had good headroom in front, but the back did seem a little limiting (I'm 6'4"). Not so here. The closest comparison is the Skoda Yeti. The interior design itself is less Honda and more Acura TSX. In fact, the (fake) wood-trim and the air vents look almost identical to what's in the TSX cabin. There's also a lot of soft-touch plastic, just like the old CR-V. All models have a little LCD screen above the center console which shows information like radio stations and climate control. That sounds great, but the display has horrible resolution and looks cheap even from a passenger seat. The navigation system is simply okay. Graphics for maps themselves look more 2008 than 2012, but Honda's satnav has always been pretty intuitive to work with. One great feature of the satnav is that if your phone gets a SMS or call when you're driving, an on-screen option will pop up to reply from a preset list (that you can add to) of common SMS replies like "I'm driving" or "I'll be there soon." In theory. It wasn't working with my Android phone or an iPhone 4. One minor issue I noticed was that many of the buttons for the radio/satnav are too close together and too small to operate with gloves on. The volume knob, even, is minute. It's also very quiet inside once underway. There's not as much road noise as the previous CR-V, and wind noise was pretty minimal. All-in-all though, the interior is a nice place to be, but really doesn't improve upon the last-gen. That's not a disaster in this case, simply because the last-gen had a really great interior that was both comfortable, luxurious for the money, and pretty tough at the same time. However, it would have been nice for Honda to have challenged themselves, and I really don't think they did.
Last but, for us, most important, is the driving experience. The engine is both a high and low point. The 2.4L is pretty smooth as far as 4-bangers go. But the problem is that it's the only option, and it really doesn't have much more power than the last-gen, only 5 more horsepower. 185 hp is respectable for a base motor, but in a car that can take you over $30k, it's simply unacceptable as the only option. The Toyota RAV4 has a hoot of a motor (3.5L V6) for around $25k. The other problem is the 5-speed automatic. Now, it's a very good gearbox, don't get me wrong. It's heavenly smooth and shifts surprisingly quickly. But the fact of the matter is that it's a 5 speed living in a 6 and 7 speed world. And at highway speeds, the engine likes to sit higher in the RPM range than I'd like, even though it still promises to average around 30-mpg freeway. Honda really need to give this thing their 3.5L V6 in the EX-L trim though. The saving grace here is that the CR-V still feels more like a car than an SUV to drive. The steering gives great feedback (maybe the best of any Honda I've recently driven). Despite being a tall vehicle, it still doesn't feel very tall and corners with a lot less lean than the RAV4 and especially the Kia Sportage. The tires are the chassis' biggest letdown. It's clear that the compound here is more economy-based than for performance. And, considering who this car is for, that's no surprise.
I still really like the CR-V. If I were a father with a small family who needed a versatile vehicle that could handle itself in the snow, I'd still pick the CR-V. The little 4-banger is willing, the interior is very high-quality, and it looks quite handsome too. The CR-V is a great little SUV, but it'd be nice for Honda to push it further.