Mitsubishi L 200 1996 vs Honda CR-V 2004
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
---|---|---|---|
Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Mitsubishi L 200 is available with rear wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive, while Honda CR-V can be equipped only with four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Mitsubishi L 200 also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
Engines: | 2.0 - 2.5 | 2.0 - 2.4 | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 87 - 132 HP | 140 - 162 HP | |
Torque: | 154 - 240 NM | 190 - 340 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 23.7 seconds | 10.6 - 12 seconds | |
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.7 | 6.7 - 10.1 | |
On average, Mitsubishi L 200 equipped with diesel engines consume 3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 4.64 m | 4.61 m | |
Width: | 1.66 m | 1.78 m | |
Height: | 1.63 m | 1.71 m | |
Mitsubishi L 200 is 3 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 12 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi L 200 is 8 cm lower. | |||
Trunk capacity: | no data | 527 litres | |
Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 952 litres | |
Turning diameter: | no data | 10.6 meters | |
Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`690 | ~ 1`910 | |
Safety: | no data | no data | |
Quality: | no data | above average | |
Average price (€): | 4600 | 2800 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi L 200 has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |