Ford C-Max 2007 vs Honda CR-V 2007
| Body: | Minivan / MPV | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Ford C-Max) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Honda CR-V) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 215 NM | 192 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.1 seconds | 10.2 seconds | |
|
Honda CR-V is a more dynamic driving. Ford C-Max engine produces 60 HP less power than Honda CR-V, but torque is 23 NM more than Honda CR-V. Due to the lower power, Ford C-Max reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.8 | 8.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.6 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Ford C-Max is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford C-Max consumes 3.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that by driving the Ford C-Max over 15,000 km in a year you can save 495 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford C-Max consumes 3.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1140 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford C-Max gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Honda CR-V 2007: 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: | 300'000 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 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 19 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Honda Accord | |
| 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 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Ford C-Max 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. | |||
| Honda CR-V 2007 2.0 engine: This engine is sensitive to both fuel and oil quality. Using low-grade gasoline can quickly damage the catalytic converter and lead to premature failure of the oxygen sensors.
Many Honda owners are annoyed ... More about Honda CR-V 2007 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.33 m | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.60 m | 1.68 m | |
| Ford C-Max is 19 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V, width is practically the same , while the height of Ford C-Max is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 550 litres | 556 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1620 litres | 955 litres | |
| Ford C-Max has 6 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford C-Max (by 665 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford C-Max is 1.1 metres less than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Ford C-Max can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`920 | 2`050 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 5400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 4.8/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford C-Max has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |