Nissan X-Trail 2010 vs Honda CR-V 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Honda CR-V is a more dynamic driving. Nissan X-Trail and Honda CR-V have the same engine power, but Nissan X-Trail torque is 30 NM less than Honda CR-V. Nissan X-Trail reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan X-Trail is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan X-Trail consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that by driving the Nissan X-Trail over 15,000 km in a year you can save 150 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan X-Trail consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan X-Trail gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Honda CR-V 2010: 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 identified (pressure is provided to the clutch by a dual-pump system). To allow ABS to work seamlessly, the clutch is also disengaged during braking. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Opel Vivaro | 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. Nissan X-Trail might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Nissan X-Trail 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. | |||
| Nissan X-Trail 2010 2.0 engine: The engine has a good power to fuel consumption ratio and, with careful maintenance, a long service life. The most common problems with these engines are with the fuel injection system and lubrication. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.70 m | 1.68 m | |
| Nissan X-Trail is 11 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan X-Trail is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 479 litres | 524 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Nissan X-Trail has 45 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. This could mean that the Nissan X-Trail uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan X-Trail is 1 metres less than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Nissan X-Trail can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`170 | 2`160 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Honda CR-V has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan X-Trail has serious deffects in 75 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8600 | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan X-Trail has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |