Mitsubishi Outlander 2006 vs Honda CR-V 2007
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.4 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 | 166 HP | |
| Torque: | 213 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Honda CR-V is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 6 HP less power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 7 NM less than Honda CR-V. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 | 9.5 | |
| 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 0.6 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 90 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 | 610 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 | 480'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 21 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Galant, Mitsubishi Grandis, Mitsubishi Eclipse | Used only for this car | |
| 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 | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.68 m | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander is 2 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 402 litres | 556 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1691 litres | 955 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Outlander has 154 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. This could mean that the Mitsubishi Outlander uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 736 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 0.4 metres less than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`300 | 2`160 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Honda CR-V has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Outlander has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 5600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |