Utility vehicles are hot right now. Too hot. So hot that the segment has been molting into new shapes, and turning into performance variants and hybrids to appeal to the masses. This is how sedans die, and why sports cars are growingly scarce. Sort of bucking the market trend in the strangest way came from the least likely source. Honda, with good intentions, was trying to grow its U.S. marketshare with a new body shape. This wouldn’t follow the boxiness of the CR-V, nor follow exactly the same formula that made the Accord so successful (though, it wouldn’t diverge that much). It would go down as a bit of a sales disaster for the company. I’m talking about the Honda Crosstour.
But does that make it a failure as a car?
What Is It?
The Accord Crosstour was an oversized wagony-sedan-thing that somehow wasn’t quite big enough to haul that many people or things. But then, I guess it wasn’t supposed to be if there was already a minivan and a three-row SUV in the lineup. What the Crosstour tried to do was become one of the first in-betweeners for those looking for something not quite so bulky. But it had to be more practical than the standard Accord. That, in my view, was Honda’s first mistake. Putting a nameplate that has a legacy attached to it onto an entirely new model can have repercussions and reflect negatively on the car from the start.
Honda tried to get prospective buyers excited by touting the premium cabin and practicality of the Accord platform-based “SUV”:
The Accord Crosstour combines the sophisticated refinement of a premium sedan with versatile characteristics of an SUV to create an entirely distinct concept within the Crossover Utility Vehicle (CUV) segment. Leveraging the many benefits of a car-based platform, the Accord Crosstour starts with the top-level refinement of the Accord V-6 Sedan and further expands utility with a sleek-yet-functional profile for increased cargo space.
A similar message was conveyed in Honda’s advertising at the time:
The thing is, the Crosstour sort of made sense given the context of the world at the time. It was the late 2000s, a different, weird time for the industry, going about every which way in dealing with the percussion of the Great Recession.
The downturn saw global consequences, but that didn’t mean there wasn’t still risk-taking. Overseas, foreigners like BMW and Porsche were hard at work envisioning what the vehicle of the next decade could look like. This meant swaying from the traditional norms of three-box sedans and two-box SUVs and heading into the era of the unknown. Here, the two started to differ. BMW’s next move was a coupe-like SUV that we know as the controversial X6. Porsche went the more logical route of the sedan, but with a twist. This would be the ultimate fastback of fastback sedans that has since become a staple of the brand lineup called the Panamera.
What the two have in common is that the Germans were trying them out for the first time. Neither company had figured how to make the X6 nor Panamera aesthetically pleasing to the eye and therefore, the styling is a miss from those early years, in my view. Meanwhile, Honda was also trying to grow its lineup. It too saw market potential for a new class of vehicle that was bigger than a sedan, but not quite blown up to full-size SUV. The compromise was somewhere in the middle.
With Honda joined in the mix, what did the three have in common?
I bet in your head, you’re thinking words like ‘hatchbacks,’ ‘humps,’ ‘hunchbacks,’ maybe ‘humpback whales.’ Actually, humpback whales are beautiful up close but that’s not what we’re talking about here. It’s clear that styling took a backseat, while practicality took a stronghold. That is, as long as we’re ignoring rearward visibility. Also, unlike the unusual Germans however, the Honda equivalent did not receive a sequel. Here’s why.
An Expensive Offering
Honda was so intent on offering a more practical package without being as large as the Pilot. However, the starting price was announced to be just $300 less than a Pilot in 2010. To get your hands on an ordinary Accord sedan back then, it would have cost you about 10 grand less of your hard-earned money. How could that possibly be worth it?
To be fair, the Crosstour was never offered with a base trim, and 4-cylinder power wasn’t available until 2012. Still, $30,380 was a tough sell in 2009 when buyers were weary of an economy that was just beginning to recover. And the styling wasn’t a strong selling point.
What was a strong selling point was healthy V6 power in addition to what else was included in the EX trim. Things like 17-inch wheels, dual-zone AC, 360-watt stereo, moonroof, fog lights, chrome door handles, compass, and an outside temperature reader. Stepping up to the EX-L added leather seats, steering wheel, and shift knob, memory seat and side-mirror controls, upped the wheel size to 18 inches, auto-on headlamps, more speakers, and USB audio connectivity.
Mind you, this was before active safety features became commonplace so there’s nothing to give you a beeping shit fit should you marginally stray out of lane. The only driver incompetence remained in you behind the wheel. And you, as the presumptive owner, can focus more on its perks as a Crossover Utility Vehicle — Honda’s term — and it would start to shine a little bit.
For starters, it came with increased ground clearance. At the very least, you saw 6 inches of clearance at the front end, and up to 8.1 inches to most of the underbody. That’s something for a car that never sat much more than five feet tall. Also impressive is the cargo capacity, which stretches from 25.7 cu-ft. of space with the seats up to a cavernous 51.3 cu-ft. once they fold down. Indeed, a Crosstour will have more than double the cargo space of an Accord sedan, but naturally, holds half as much as the Pilot.
This is not too far off the mark of what a compact crossover can get you today, such the recently refreshed Subaru Crosstrek. Even if you don’t regret buying a Subaru, it seems there was no buyers’ remorse about purchasing a Crosstour.
Sales started strong, but quickly died down. Honda sold 28,851 units in 2010, but lost almost 11,000 cars the following year. Hype came and went faster than hormones on prom night. Changes had to be made.
The Work Begins
Honda’s not the type to throw in the towel on the first try. It lost the battle, but there’s still a war to clammer newfound market share. The updates began with the 2012 model year. For starters, the ‘Accord’ would be dropped to lessen the confusion between the esteemed sedan and the adventurous Crosstour. The next step was lowering the base price. For that to happen, it gained a new engine.
This was a good move because it was the K24Y2 inline-4 that was part of a motor family already with a legacy. This was a refinement of the VTEC bangers that came about in the 1990s with a spin toward fuel economy. Flatfooters didn’t miss out on a higher redline that came with more power, and the controls for variable valve timing could utilize the two camshafts to squeeze out a few more MPGs.
As a result, the price dropped almost three grand to $27,755 before any destination charges were applied. You could still get a well-equipped EX as the base model, only now, your K series engine produced 192 horsepower and 162 lb.-ft. of torque. What it lacked in acceleration, even by Jason’s metrics of what determines a fast car, you got up to an EPA-rated 29 MPG on the highway.
The One You Want
For 2013, the improvements continued to roll in. Changes included a revised front fascia, new wheels for the higher trims, upgraded interior materials, new tech safety features, a standard reverse camera to address rear visibility along with adjusted headrests so you can see out the back easier. The inline-4 could now see up to 31 MPG for a two-wheel-drive Crosstour, while the J series 3.5-liter V6 got an upgrade.
Transitioning from a J35Z2 to a J35Y1 mill saw power jump from 271 to 278 horsepower. Torque dipped by just two to 252 but it peaked at lower RPMs. The inline-4 saw continued use out of the five-speed automatic while V6 variants saw an extra cog. The six-speed auto means fuel mileage jumped to 29 highway MPG for a two-wheel-drive Crosstour. Equipping Honda’s RealTime 4WD system only saw 1 mile per gallon lost on the highway and two in the city. The worst the Crosstour saw in its lifetime from the EPA was 18.
Should you need to get anywhere in a hurry in a Crosstour, the V6 is a healthy asset. In critical testing, acceleration times are all over the place. The slowest launch time I can find recorded is 7.6 seconds to sixty. One source points out a zer0-to-sixty time as little as 6.6 seconds.
Honda’s efforts to enliven the Crosstour’s appeal came to no avail. It saw just 16,847 units moved in 2013 before tumbling down to 11,000 and 9,000 units in the following two years. The Crosstour saw its demise in August 2015, when the last model rolled out of the assembly plant in East Liberty, OH. In all, production totaled 108,716.
What It Means Now
As cars get more electrified and complicated as a whole, vehicles like the Crosstour find appeal. This generation of Hondas was the last before oft-dreaded CVTs started to make a prominent appearance in the lineup. The bulletproof K series engine production ended to make room for the 1.5T four banger that’s popped up with issues.
Not that the Crosstour was ever perfect. It saw premature wear on the brakes and there were troubles with the V6. Still, once you’re aware of what it takes to maintain a Crosstour, gems do come up in the classifieds. Here’s a 2012 example with a V6 in Illinois with just 91,000 miles. One owner, four-wheel-dive in the top shelf EX-L trim level; the dealer is asking $12,995. Similarly priced is a 2013 Crosstour with the K24. As someone who owned a Honda Accord with this engine for six years, I can attest to its durability. Stay on top of services and this engine, and the V6, can last you over 200,000 miles.
Speaking of Accords, the Crosstour’s relatively waning popularity means that it has dipped to around the same value (or even lower) of the Accord sedan produced in the same timeframe despite a $10,000 difference in initial base price. Sure, compare the equivalent trim levels, the difference only shrinks to about $5,000, but still, a 2015 Accord EX-L with 95,000 miles can be found online for $16,585 with a similar CarFax report to the 2012 $12,995 Crosstour mentioned above. Even a 2014 Accord LX base model with similar miles in Florida is commanding more money than either Crosstour.
In the area where I live now, some two hours north of Phoenix, it seems all of the Crosstours that were produced in the 2010s made their way up here. In town, I can’t turn a corner or cross the aisle in the grocery store lot without encountering a Crosstour. And I’ve seen what people do them. Some wear roof racks with the occasional kayak strapped down, others wear stickers on the back plastered with progressive political slogans. The warranty may be long expired, but it’s clear they see prolonged use just like any other Honda.
If I can’t get my Clown Shoe Miata, it wouldn’t be a massive project to modernize a Crosstour. Later Accords shared a similar dashboard if I could incorporate an OEM display that supported Apple CarPlay. Then I’d be one of the locals who installs his own choice of useful accessories.
Since the Crosstour bowed out, Honda has brought back the Passport from the dead, and I believe if the Crosstour was brought from the dead, it would do well…enough.
A $31,000 Subaru Crosstrek is nothing to sneeze at in 2024. Hell, even a Crosstrek Wilderness, which can cost a pretty penny, can get you some bang for your buck as we found out last year. Adventure cars like the Subie and the Honda and Toyota TRD Pros whatnots and renovated VW Vanagons are high on the emotional quotient.
Just as the Honda Crosstour was on its way out, the Subaru was coming in. It was only a lifted Impreza hatchback at first conception, now it’s considered a class lead and has a dedicated fanbase. The Honda Crosstour may not have worked the first time, but the industry has since evolved, and that goes for recreational vehicles as well. Keep the V6 that’s in the Passport, commit to a price tag of under $40,000, maybe add some cladding, and it could have a place as the Accord’s evil cousin, I think.
Even if I’m wrong, these things seem like a good deal on the used market. They’re basically nicer, bigger Accords for roughly the same money.
Was not aware that Honda continued to develop the Crosstour. It always looked awkward, and didn’t interest me at all.
For the true horror show, look at the ZDX! This was clearly an Outback competitor when launched. The sloped hatch and lack of sturdy roof rack killed it for me (I don’t care about looks). I did love my sister’s 199(3?) accord wagon. RIP thanks to NYC car thieves. I’ve known 3 people to buy a crosstour. Weirdly; they are all band directors, and live hundreds of miles away from each other.
Always thought the ZDX looked pretty cool, and waaaaay better than the X6.
Didn’t they sell like three of them?
My recollection of when these came out was they cost in the low to mid 40’s, but the local Honda dealership only ordered them with AWD and typically in the higher trim levels so maybe that’s why the MSRPs listed in the article are lower than I remember. When they came off lease three years later, they showed up on the lot for a hair over 20k, and they tended to hang on the lot for a while. I was amazed by the 50-55% three year depreciation on a Honda, but it looks like the ensuing years have been kind.
Like many here, I find the Crosstour appealing on paper. However, I think it’s ugly AF. Look at that bulbous rear-end! It’s awful. This things was way uglier than the Panamera, which I actually do like the looks of. For the record, the X6 is also ugly as heck. Too much wheel going on there and too tall.
It was objectively ugly but I still love hatches over sedans, the crosstour always interested me
Too gross to consider.
Surprised there was only one mention of the ZDX below. Felt like the Crosstour was the mainstream version meant to help amortize the fancy Acura version.
I always loved these things…. and I guarantee you that I would’ve bought one if they’d put a stick in it. I was SO into them at the time. Still am, really. But I’m not willing to give up the manual.
I always liked these. Its supremely practical. Honda has a real knack for thinking up an ideal practical vehicle but mucking up the styling so bad that nobody wants anything to do with it. Honda really needs a rebrand on their styling department. Imagine if you could get something as good looking as an Alfa Romeo but with the reliability of a honda?
The last time Alfa Romeo tried this combination the Alfa Romeo Arna was the result.
Let it be a reminder of what *not* to do…
That’s a bad example, not just because Arna used the Nissan Pulsar’s body, which wasn’t ugly, per se, but hardly memorable.
It could be argued that the Arna made it “memorable”…
You could look at a Subaru Tribeca! Its body lines were drawn by an ex-Alfa designer (notice the grille).
I’d rather endure having an Alfa with the reliability of an Alfa (which isn’t as bad as a lot of people think). At last I’d have fun on the way….
There are two distinct Tribecas: the ‘meh’ and the hideous
Mostly only stupid annoying things break, but the car continues to work. At least for modern Alfas.
Not even, my mom has had a ’17 Giulia 2.0 since new. It had a minor issue with a coolant leak and a map light, both easily addressed under warranty. Other than that, it’s just been normal consumables and scheduled maintenance.
I owned ‘14 Giulietta JTDm. It was fine, except the door handle broke, the windscreen rubber became loose and some minor trim issues. But the mechanicals were strong.
> You could look at a Subaru Tribeca
I would prefer not to look at them
I had a 2005 Accord when the Crosstour came out and wanted one in the worst way. But I what I really needed was some extra cargo space and the slanted ass didn’t deliver as much as it ought to have, so I ended up with a 2010 Ford Edge instead (a vehicle that also occupied a gray segment area). FWIW, I was really happy with the Edge until we outgrew it.
That’s my big hesitation, a more squared off roof would yield a lot more cargo area with few sacrifices (see the Toyota Venza).
Edge is on my list of used cars to look for when it’s time to replace one of ours. The neighbor has one and I really kinda like it.
My Edge was trouble-free from 15k miles to 110k miles, except for a microswitch in the driver door latch that was keeping the dome light on. It should have been an easy DIY repair, but Ford used rivet nuts in the sheetmetal inside the driver door. When removing the access panel fasteners, rather than loosening, the rivet nuts just spun in the sheetmetal, in a location completely inaccessible by tools. It was such an epic PITA to get apart and back together, I wrote a lengthy diatribe focused on Ford engineers in black paint marker inside the door to give the next poor sap some warning about what lay ahead.
There are 2 for sale near me and I may take a look. We just became empty nesters, the 2005 MDX is getting long at the tooth and I honestly don’t need the third row. I still like the all wheel drive for a few days a year and the long roof is boon for travel. Also considering an older Venza. The new Crown Signa is right up my alley as well.
Former owner of a 2009 Venza here. Only owned it a bit over 2 years, (2021-23).
A great car. Fast as hell for what it was. Drove and felt like a LEXUS. Decent on gas if I kept my foot out of it.
Saw a white early model today on the road and realized how the styling has not aged a bit. Still looks current.
Would highly recommend. But a new Crown would be my choice if cost was not a factor.
It makes sense as a used buy now, but new, it didn’t make a ton of sense in the lineup unless you just wanted something different. A Pilot cost less to start and about the same comparably equipped, shorter in length outside but with a lot more space inside and not much of a hit to fuel mileage. Basically same with the CR-V once they added the 4-cylinder Crosstour.
If you really want to compare a tall lifted wagon from Subaru – the 2010 Outback was a lot more mainstreamed than the prior one, and less expensive than the Crosstour even comparing 6-cylinder engines. Outback sales rose nearly 70% that year.
I’ve seen rumors in some forums that a Crosstour-like vehicle is what the Accord will eventually morph into again in its next generation, which does make more sense now with taller sedans popping up like the Crown.
I rode in a Crosstour once or twice, it was honestly on par with the Acura TSX I had at the time. I just fear the fuel economy is no better with an AWD V6 than on my bigger MDX.
Acura usually has the V6 tuned to recommend premium so if you adhere to that it could be a bit cheaper or a wash to run maybe? But that also reminds me about the 2nd gen V6-powered RDX which overlapped with the Crosstour’s last couple years, same mileage there too, but the RDX had more passenger and cargo space than the Crosstour despite being about a foot shorter in length and an inch narrower.
Clammer? I hardly know’er!
I always liked it, like a more practical liftback alternative. It would be better if it had the ride height of a normal car.
Oh, and it looks better than the 3 & 5/6 Series GT.
That’s not saying much.
I’m a hatchback stan, I will always choose a hatch over the alternative. Except here. Something about the proportions are so off-putting to me.
“It’s clear that styling took a backseat, while practicality took a stronghold.”
Exactly what about a bulbous, fat fastback Accord thing conveys to you that “practicality took a stronghold”? Just like every other fastback, cargo space is much worse than it could be, in the name of styling. That’s what I like to call form over function.
“you saw 6 inches of clearance”
“That’s SOMETHING for a car that never sat much more than five feet tall.”
Really? That’s less than my Accord, which is much less than five feet tall, isn’t a weird power SUV thing, and probably is better off-road too. 6 inches is not a lot.
They were already producing an Accord wagon in Europe at the time that was more practical, and ironically better looking, but they didn’t bring it over.
Looking at buying trends now, they were more on the mark with the ZDX.
You did get it as the Acura something or other I think.
Depending on your perspective, this is either where it all started or ended. I had a coworker with a Crosstour for years and usually parked near him. These things are fuckin weird. He’s a really weird dude, so I guess it matched his personality? Anyway, I don’t find these to be quite as abominably ugly as most other weird coupe/SUV things, but they’re certainly not attractive.
That being said the X6 is a crime worthy of The Hague. Everyone kvetches about current BMW design, and they should…but the X6 truly ruined everything. It was the only stupid luxury coupe/SUV at the time and it was so laughably ugly that most people were like “haha that’s so fucking dumb, no one will buy it!”
But they DID. And they still do! Rich assholes care about being seen above all else. It doesn’t matter if their cars are hideous, because they’re getting gawked at. It also doesn’t matter to them that they’re paying more money for less car. Now our roads are filled with war crimes such as the X4, X6, GL coupes, Q5 coupes, and Porsche of all people even got suckered into it and sells a hideous Cayenne “Coupe”.
The Japanese correctly left this bullshit to die on the vine where it belonged…and I would personally take a Passport over a Crosstour 10/10 times. While I don’t really resent this car specifically, I absolutely resent that the stupid trends are still floating around today like noxious farts that never faded. Every commute my eyes are tortured by coupe-ified SUVs and it makes me irrationally angry.
Edit: I don’t even think the anger is irrational, because IMHO one of the results of all the normies wanting slant back SUVs traditional sedans, wagons, hatches, etc are dying. Are they the sole reason? No. But they’re definitely contributing to it.
The “4-door coupés” were bad enough (they were more like traditional hardtop saloons with B-pillars), but the coupé-SUVs are the worse.
I don’t want a V6, I don’t want to pay a premium for more cylinders, and I don’t want to pay the fuel costs. I don’t want the weight of AWD. I don’t want the higher ground clearance.
I would have a basic, base, Honda Accord with a hatchback with the base 1.5T engine. No more, no less – just let the whole back end of the car open up for big/bulky things.
But I can’t have that.
Just like Subaru won’t let us have a WRX hatchback.
The Honda V6 is a joy to drive, though. Especially compared to the 4-cyl in most Accords.
So weird and such a poor seller that Toyota thought it would be a great idea to produce another one thats even weirder looking and call it “Crown”
Every seems to look to Subaru for advice.
Styling’s never been Subaru’s strong point.
Well, Subaru did have some good, clean styling with the old 2nd and 3rd gen Leone back in the 1980s.
I will continue to defend the Crown. I’ve seen several in person and I actually think they look pretty good. I’ll also give Toyota credit for still trying to make a sedan happen in this day and age. They’re also exclusively hybrids and exclusively AWD, which is rad.
They took a huge risk with that car. It doesn’t seem to be working out all that well, but I salute them for it. At least they tried.
I’ve seen one Crown on the road.
Hybrid drive is a good thing.
But it’s definitely not a sedan. Its also not a coupe or a wagon, and it’s not an SUV.
And AWD is unnecessary unless you live in Canada, upstate Michigan or Alaska.
I don’t know who at Toyota thought Auntie Gladys would trade in her old Avalon for a Crown – but it’s not happening.
Just here to spread some AWD hate, because AWD (as almost all newer cars have it, including the Crown) is so not rad.
I’m selling my dad’s 2014 Acura TL SH-AWD for him, I promise it’s way better than a Crosstour…
I wanted one of those so bad with a stick. They made it in Europe I think.
They sold it here too although they are pretty hard to find.
No, we didn’t get it. Only smaller (Accord) or larger (Legend).
If Honda would have been brave enough to give us a long roof Accord wagon without cladding, it could have saved us from the CUV hellscape we are in now.
I drive a long roof Accord wagon without cladding.
They mostly did, with the global Accord Tourer coming as the Acura TSX wagon.
But would it have actually made a difference if it was in Honda showrooms or a version based on the larger US Accord? Probably not.
Nevermind that, the EUDM Accord is now dead, replaced by an assortment of crossovers here.
Also true. D-segment is just slim pickings in general but now Civics are about as big as those last couple global Accords were.
Some still remain, Passat, 508 or Superb but indeed the D-Segment saloons / estates are disappearing from mainstream manufacturers just like the E-segment did about 20 years ago…
But indeed smaller cars are getting larger, overlapping traditional segments.
Had a 2010 TSX sedan, would have loved the wagon. The 2.4 4 was perfectly matched to this car.
I remember the wagon came just after they added the V6 to the TSX sedan and naturally some said that was a miss not doing a V6 wagon. But I remember some reviews not being too keen on the V6 because of how it changed the character of the car for the worse with the extra weight hurting the handling. And IIRC that put it close in price to a TL too.
I think fuel economy was the big hit against the V6.
I was living in the upper Midwest when the Crosstour debuted, and they were all over the place pretty quickly. It was sort of an Outback alternative for folks who wanted Honda reliability over Subaru rusting. The biggest hurdle was trade-off of cargo area in the rear. I knew a few folks who moved from Subarus to the Crosstour, and after a few years those folks all moved on to Pilots. I think if they had made the rear hatch area a bit more traditional wagon-like, they probably could have kept stealing Outback owners.
I’m a solid sedan supporter, but for some reason I find the Crosstour appealing. It looks to me like a great tool for all-day Interstate bombing, with lots of room, quiet ride, and a big V6 that can hold 90 with few RPMs.
I know it looks weird, especially from the rear-quarter view. I can’t stand the BMW and Merc “SUV coupes”, but for some reason I’ve always liked this.
It could be because the generation of Accord that this is based on was one of my favorites, styling-wise.
It’s a fine looking thing, much better than the 3 & 5/6 Series GTs, which are conceptually similar.
My wife bought a 2013 EX 4 cylinder. 170,000 miles later, she still drives and says she hasn’t seen anything that makes her want to get rid of it.
But thank God it she didn’t like the Acura ZDX cousin.
“But thank God it she didn’t like the Acura ZDX cousin.”
“Honey, I love you, but if you buy that ZDX I’m calling the lawyer and filing for divorce.”
Wow there’s a lot of material there…
Nole Kums
Olen Skum
Nelo Umsk
Soooo close!
When I saw pictures of the Crosstour, I was like, ‘Yay: a wagon!’ Then I saw one in person, and was more like, ‘Aw, that’s a bit large’.
But I could see picking one up in a few years, lifting it a bit with off-road tires, and having some good fire-road rides.
The proportions are just off and the sloping rear end removes a lot of the longroof practicality. I have never cared for these. They seem like an ugly compromise. And yeah, they look large and fat.
Solid pass at any price.
Larger than necessary, a big, round rear end… it’s modeled after the typical American woman five years after getting married.
That was my reaction when I saw one for the first time. Compared to what is on the road now, it actually foreshadowed the future. It only needs a flat roof and a wagon hatch, a la Volvo 850, to look nicer and do its job better. It’s a shame that so many cars are overstyled to death.
I test drove one of these back in the day and I thought there was a lot to like about it. The loaded models we pretty cushy inside.
My main issue was the ride height. I didn’t feel like there was anything to gain and everything to lose.