Honda CR-V 1997 vs Honda CR-V 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 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: | 128 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 182 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Honda CR-V 2002 is a more dynamic driving. Honda CR-V 1997 engine produces 22 HP less power than Honda CR-V 2002, whereas torque is 8 NM less than Honda CR-V 2002. Due to the lower power, Honda CR-V 1997 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 | 9.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.6 l/100km | 9.5 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V 2002 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda CR-V 1997 consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V 2002, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Honda CR-V 1997 could require 150 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda CR-V 1997 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V 2002. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 570 km in combined cycle | 630 km in combined cycle | |
| 670 km on highway | 750 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
| Honda CR-V 2002 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
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. Honda CR-V 2002: 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 | |||
| 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 Honda CR-V 1997 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. Honda CR-V 2002 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.53 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.71 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Honda CR-V 1997 is 5 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V 2002, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Honda CR-V 1997 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 375 litres | 525 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
670 litres | 952 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V 2002 has more luggage space. Honda CR-V 1997 has 150 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V 2002. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Honda CR-V 2002 (by 282 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda CR-V 1997 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Honda CR-V 2002. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`900 | 1`910 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda CR-V has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |