One of the better reviews IMO. He has obviously taken the trouble to do his research before writing, unlike many other reviewers.
i must, however, disagree with his negative points.
Bad
Lacks refinement under power and the front seats lack support
Insipid performance on anything other than low-speed urban routes
1. I can only assume that the seats in the Advance Style, which he was obviously driving, are different from the Advance that I drove (& have ordered)
I am a 6' ft 16 and a half stone lump and I found the seats were extremely comfortable and supportive, even without adjustable lumbar support. As all Honda seats I have ever used, in my 6 previous Hondas, have been.
2.He did say that he used 'Sport' mode, but I have to disagree entirely with him regarding insipid performance AS LONG AS you use 'SPORT' mode. It came very close to my 1.5 turbo DSG Karoq. which is very torquey.
In Eco & Standard modes it is not punchy, but perfectly adequate for urban driving, even in Eco.
In cross country driving heavy traffic, during which one might need rapid overtakes be ready to flick it into 'SORT' and you will be surprised at the difference it makes (unlike his opinion) I was quite surprised when I did just that and would say it certainly is no slouch, driven with a large degree of 'verve' and accompanying ICE 'drone', which soon disappears after the overtake.
I have not driven far enough or on M way, so cannot comment on his overall MPG. I can only reiterate that on my hours drive I got 70MPG round the Bournemouth/Poole conurbation and 61 after a 4mile dual carriageway (50mph) trip + urban.
It does not pretend to be a sports car and the 'S'. in SUV must mean sports as in windsurfing etc, not sports as in sports car.
I find it interesting that an increasing number of reviewers are beating Honda's given 0-62 time of 10.9 seconds. I think driven spiritedly, the 9+seconds quoted above is far more realistic.