Mitsubishi Outlander 2006 vs Honda CR-V 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 160 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 213 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 10 HP more power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 23 NM more than Honda CR-V. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 | 9.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.2 l/100km | 10.6 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Outlander could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 580 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 520 km with real consumption | 540 km with real consumption | ||
| Honda CR-V gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mitsubishi Outlander engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 21 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Galant, Mitsubishi Grandis, Mitsubishi Eclipse | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda Accord, Honda FR-V, Honda Stream | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Outlander might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.54 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is smaller. Mitsubishi Outlander is 10 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 402 litres | 525 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1691 litres | 952 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander has 123 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 739 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 1 metres more than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`300 | 1`910 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Honda CR-V has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Outlander has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 3200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 8.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |