Nissan X-Trail 2007 vs Honda CR-V 2007
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 141 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 196 NM | 192 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 10.2 seconds | |
|
Honda CR-V is a more dynamic driving. Nissan X-Trail engine produces 9 HP less power than Honda CR-V, but torque is 4 NM more than Honda CR-V. Due to the lower power, Nissan X-Trail reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 8.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.8 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan X-Trail consumes 0.6 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 X-Trail could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan X-Trail consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 660 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 18 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Serena | 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.63 m | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.68 m | |
| Nissan X-Trail is 11 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 4 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 479 litres | 556 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 955 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Nissan X-Trail has 77 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`000 | 2`050 | |
| Safety: | 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 65 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5200 | 5600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan X-Trail has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |