Honda CR-V 1999 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 147 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 182 NM | 176 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | 11.4 seconds | |
| Honda CR-V engine produces 11 HP more power than Mitsubishi Outlander, whereas torque is 6 NM more than Mitsubishi Outlander. Despite the higher power, Honda CR-V reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.0 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.3 l/100km | 9.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda CR-V consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Honda CR-V could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda CR-V consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 59 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 580 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 690 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
| 560 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Outlander gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 460'000 km | 520'000 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: | 9 years | 44 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Honda Accord | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Space Wagon | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mitsubishi Outlander engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.53 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.62 m | |
| Honda CR-V is 1 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Outlander, width is practically the same , while the height of Honda CR-V is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 375 litres | 402 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
670 litres | 1705 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has more luggage space. Honda CR-V has 27 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Outlander. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 1035 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda CR-V is 0.8 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means Honda CR-V can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`900 | 1`995 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda CR-V has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |