Honda CR-V 2012 vs Volvo XC60 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
| Honda CR-V engine produces 13 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 50 NM less than Volvo XC60. Despite less power, Honda CR-V reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 5.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 7.6 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 Honda CR-V consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Honda CR-V could require 45 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Honda CR-V consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1030 km in combined cycle | 1320 km in combined cycle | |
| 1130 km on highway | 1420 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 920 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo XC60 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 2012: Vehicle has automatic four-wheel drive system that sends torque to front wheels under normal conditions. Electronically controlled multi-plate clutch transfers torque to rear axle when wheel slip is detected. The all-wheel drive system constantly interacts with the VSA dynamic stabilization system and electric power steering to provide full vehicle control, good traction and maneuverability in all road conditions. Volvo XC60 2013: This Volvo has Haldex Generation V proactive automatic four-wheel drive. It analyzes input from the ABS and engine control units and can increase pressure on the multi-disc clutch for faster application when needed. During normal driving, the torque split is 100% to the front and no torque to the rear. If wheel spin is detected, torque can be split evenly between the axles (50% to 50%). | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.53 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Honda CR-V is smaller. Honda CR-V is 12 cm shorter than the Volvo XC60, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Honda CR-V is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 589 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1669 litres | 1455 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Honda CR-V has 94 litres more trunk space than the Volvo XC60. The Volvo XC60 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Honda CR-V (by 214 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda CR-V is 0.1 metres more than that of the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`200 | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Honda CR-V has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 12 800 | 16 000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.8/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda CR-V has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |