HONDA CROSSTOURER REVIEW

HONDA CROSSTOURER REVIEWH. Kevin Ash rides the Honda Crosstourer in the UK to see if his initial concerns about the bike's fuel economy and range were justified. We reviewed Honda鈥檚 new Crosstourer last month but questioned its range and economy - both crucial factors for bikes in the adventure category, which are used regularly for long-distance touring. During the bike鈥檚 launch in Spain, it didn鈥檛 appear to be very frugal. However, a lot of stop-start and high-speed riding meant it wouldn鈥檛 have been fair to condemn it for poor economy. So we grabbed one of the first Crosstourers in the UK and rode that for a week over many more miles than we could on the initial test, fast and gently, and came up with two surprises. The first was to do with our primary mission, economy and range, and in these the big Honda didn鈥檛 just pass the test, it excelled.

This raised eyebrows because the 1,237cc engine is a retuned version of the unit which powers the rather thirsty VFR1200F sports tourer. Peak power has been reduced to 127bhp from the VFR1200F鈥檚 170bhp so you鈥檇 expect some fuel savings, but Honda has done further work on improving efficiency. Fast motorway cruising gives 46mpg, resulting in a range of 210 miles, while a little restraint sees that improving to 50mpg and 230 miles. So the Honda is close to the top-selling BMW R1200GS in economy and beats it for range. The other surprise was less positive: on the launch the seat comfort wasn鈥檛 great, but after 150 continuous miles in the UK I was shifting about to try to reduce the ache. The problem is that it鈥檚 very narrow at the front but sit farther back and it slopes too steeply, so you can never find a good position. If you're a Google account login, just with a click of voting has been completed. Thank you for the help.

We feel some of that is down to the Audi鈥檚 longer list of standard equipment. In R-Design trim the Volvo features sat-nav, a digital dash, autonomous braking, parking sensors and LED lights, plus half-leather seats to match its rival. A reversing camera is a 拢375 option and some of the more advanced safety tech is extra, too, plus heated seats are part of a 拢500 pack. A power tailgate costs 拢375 but is standard on the Q3. The item that really stands out, though, is the XC40鈥檚 connectivity: CarPlay and Android Auto are part of a 拢300 pack when the Audi gets these features as standard. At least quality is strong - not quite a match for the Q3, but the materials feel like they justify the price tag and edge out the Mazda. The cabin design is the most interesting, but also still functional. This practicality is helped by the platform, because the XC40 sits on Volvo鈥檚 CMA Compact Modular Architecture.

Like the Q3鈥檚 MQB set-up, this is a scalable chassis that uses MacPherson-strut front suspension and a multi-link layout at the rear. The XC40 is the best-riding car here, with a more gentle approach to its suspension damping than the Audi, which means it feels more settled at speed. However, while it replicates this on country roads, it doesn鈥檛 feel as controlled or as composed as the Q3. The steering is light but quick and you get a sense of the Volvo鈥檚 taller stance. It鈥檚 true that more buyers in this class will look for comfort rather than how much speed you can carry, and here the XC40 balances these traits nicely. Although the engine is more potent than the Audi鈥檚 on paper, the Volvo鈥檚 1.5-litre three-cylinder turbo unit can鈥檛 match the four-cylinder 1.5 Audi. It was 1.6 seconds slower from 0-60mph, taking 10.6 seconds, which was partly due to the fact this T3 only comes with a six-speed manual box.

The shift is sweet enough; it鈥檚 nothing to write home about, but it doesn鈥檛 detract from the driving experience. The XC40 couldn鈥檛 match the Audi in gear, either, despite its 15Nm torque advantage. Refinement is still good because the triple doesn鈥檛 grumble like some. It only becomes more vocal at higher revs. But it remains smooth. That鈥檚 the XC40鈥檚 main trait: smoothness and refinement in almost every area. The XC40鈥檚 boot isn鈥檛 as big as its rivals鈥?here. There鈥檚 460 litres with the rear seats in place and 1,336 litres when they鈥檙e folded down. While it does limit its practicality compared with the Q3 when you鈥檙e really after space, in most day-to-day situations owners will find the XC40鈥檚 boot adequate, just like they will the cabin. If the Audi鈥檚 interior is a tech-laden example of quality, the Volvo鈥檚 feels warmer and more welcoming, if not quite as advanced. There鈥檚 still plenty of technology, but the materials give it a more vibrant feel - and there鈥檚 space to match. It might not be as large in the rear as the Audi, but the tall roofline and upright seats mean there鈥檚 plenty of head and legroom.