Nissan X-Trail 2003 vs Honda CR-V 1997
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 165 HP | 128 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 182 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Nissan X-Trail is more dynamic to drive. Nissan X-Trail engine produces 37 HP more power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 48 NM more than Honda CR-V. Thanks to more power Nissan X-Trail reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.7 | 10.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.9 l/100km | 10.8 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Nissan X-Trail consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that by driving the Nissan X-Trail over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Nissan X-Trail consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 560 km in combined cycle | |
| 750 km on highway | 680 km on highway | ||
| 500 km with real consumption | 530 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Nissan X-Trail 2001: It has selectable four-wheel drive with Auto, 2WD and Lock modes. In Auto mode, it has front-wheel drive under normal conditions, the rear axle engages when the front wheels start to slip, and power is distributed variably up to 50:50 front to rear. In 2WD mode, the transfer clutch is permanently unlocked, but the electronic control unit can engage the rear wheels occasionally, for example during hard acceleration. In Lock mode, the transfer clutch is permanently locked, providing a constant 50:50 power distribution. When vehicle speed increases above 30 km/h (20 mph), it switches to Auto mode, but when speed decreases, it switches back to Lock mode. The system also switches to 2WD mode in the event of overheating. Honda CR-V 1997: Car has Honda`s real-time four-wheel drive system, which sends torque to the front wheels under normal conditions. Multi-plate clutch transfers torque to rear axle when wheel slip is detected (pressure is applied to clutch by dual pump system). To allow ABS to work smoothly, the clutch is also disengaged during braking. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 24 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Nissan Sentra | 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. Nissan X-Trail might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.51 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.68 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Nissan X-Trail is 2 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V, 1 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 375 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 670 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan X-Trail is 0.4 metres more than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Nissan X-Trail can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`000 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan X-Trail has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |