Honda CR-V 2002 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 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: | 150 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 176 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 11.4 seconds | |
| Honda CR-V engine produces 14 HP more power than Mitsubishi Outlander, whereas torque is 14 NM more than Mitsubishi Outlander. Despite the higher power, Honda CR-V reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.3 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.1 l/100km | 9.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Honda CR-V consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means that by driving the Honda CR-V over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Honda CR-V consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 59 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
| 520 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 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: | 11 years | 44 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda Accord, Honda FR-V, Honda Stream | 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: | 4.58 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.62 m | |
|
Honda CR-V is larger. Honda CR-V is 4 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Outlander, 3 cm wider, while the height of Honda CR-V is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 525 litres | 402 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
952 litres | 1705 litres | |
| Honda CR-V has 123 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Outlander. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 753 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda CR-V is 1 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`910 | 1`995 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda CR-V has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |