Two things made me go for the HR-V and not the Crosstar, they were,
1.Crosstar a bit to tight a fit for my corpulence!
2.Honda (IMHO) are insane, the Crosstar is meant to be the absolute top of the range and they ruin the car by leaving off all those things mentioned by others above and replace them with a 'banging' stereo system. The reason being, one assumes, is to attract their 'fantasy' target market. the 'yoof'.
They have got it wrong again, having not learnt the lesson from the original HR-V which was also aimed at the 'YOOF'. Shortly after the original was launched I asked Horizon how many they had sold. 10 was the reply and I said split the sales by age demographic.
The reply to that was 3 to the target market and 7 to old f@rts like me!
Honda will NOT learn that the OFs want a car with a bit of height for bad backs and knees (in my case anyway) & they persist in missing the market.
Being an avid driver of SUVs for years due to bad back I loved the look of the Crosstar, but space and lack of those items above made me go for the HR-V, with the height and FAR more tech than any MKlV Jazz. I'll put up with the slower speed than the Crosstar (although I would disregard the figures put out by Honda, it is just as fast as a 1.5 turbo DSG Karoq) & the slightly poorer consumption. I will drive around quite happily, getting in and out easily with plenty of space, a far better ride than the Crosstar I tested, with nice warm hands and blind spot winking at me! in my MID range HR-V