Mitsubishi Outlander 2012 vs Honda CR-V 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander and Honda CR-V have the same engine power, but Mitsubishi Outlander torque is 30 NM more than Honda CR-V. Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.7 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 Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Outlander over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1110 km in combined cycle | 1030 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 1130 km on highway | ||
| 840 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 330'000 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: | 15 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi L 200, Mitsubishi ASX | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda Accord | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.65 m | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander is 13 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 589 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
986 litres | 1669 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Outlander has 369 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. This could mean that the Mitsubishi Outlander uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Honda CR-V (by 683 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 1.2 metres less than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`170 | 2`200 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mitsubishi Outlander scores higher in safety tests, but Honda CR-V is better rated in child safety tests. The Mitsubishi Outlander scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Honda CR-V has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Outlander has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 9200 | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |