Nissan Serena 1993 vs Honda CR-V 2002
| 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: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 181 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Honda CR-V is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Serena engine produces 10 HP less power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 9 NM less than Honda CR-V. Due to the lower power, Nissan Serena reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.1 | 9.3 | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Nissan Serena consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Serena could require 270 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 720 km on highway | 760 km on highway | ||
| Honda CR-V gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Honda CR-V 2002: Car has Honda`s real-time four-wheel drive system, which sends torque to the front wheels under normal conditions. Multi-plate clutch transfers torque to rear axle when wheel slip is detected (pressure is applied to clutch by dual pump system). To allow ABS to work smoothly, the clutch is also disengaged during braking. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan Primera, Nissan Almera Tino | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda Accord, Honda FR-V, Honda Stream | |
| 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 Nissan Serena 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 2002 2.0 engine: In 2001, Honda introduced the K-series engine lineup, featuring an aluminum block with an open-deck design and cast-iron cylinder liners. It utilizes a port fuel injection system, a 16-valve aluminum cylinder head without hydraulic lifters, individual ignition coils, a VTC cam ... More about Honda CR-V 2002 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.32 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.84 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Nissan Serena is smaller, but higher. Nissan Serena is 27 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Serena is 13 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 525 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
620 litres | 952 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage space. Nissan Serena has 175 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Honda CR-V (by 332 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 10.4 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`225 | 1`910 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Honda CR-V has
| |