Volvo XC90 2002 vs Honda CR-V 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| 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: | 163 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
| Volvo XC90 engine produces 23 HP more power than Honda CR-V, the torque is the same for both cars. Despite the higher power, Volvo XC90 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 6.7 | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Volvo XC90 consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo XC90 could require 225 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 68 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Honda CR-V 2004: Car features Honda`s real-time four-wheel-drive system, which sends torque to the front wheels under normal conditions. A multi-plate clutch transfers torque to the rear axle when wheel slip is detected (pressure is applied to the clutch by a dual-pump system). To allow ABS to work smoothly, the clutch is also disengaged during braking. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 350'000 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 Volvo XC90 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC70, Volvo C30 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda Accord, Honda FR-V | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volvo XC90 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: | 4.80 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Volvo XC90 is larger. Volvo XC90 is 16 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 12 cm wider, while the height of Volvo XC90 is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 530 litres | 525 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2404 litres | 952 litres | |
| Volvo XC90 has 5 litres more trunk space than the Honda CR-V. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo XC90 (by 1452 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.7 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC90 is 2.1 metres more than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Volvo XC90 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`680 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Honda CR-V has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo XC90 has serious deffects in 105 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 3200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.1/10 | 8.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC90 has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |