Honda CR-V 1997 vs Nissan X-Trail 2001
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
---|---|---|---|
Engines: | 2.0 (petrol) | 2.0 - 2.5 (petrol, diesel) | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 128 - 147 HP | 114 - 165 HP | |
Torque: | 182 NM | 192 - 270 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 - 12.5 seconds | 9.9 - 13.7 seconds | |
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.7 - 10.2 | 7.2 - 10.0 | |
Honda CR-V petrol engines consumes on average 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than Nissan X-Trail. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 4.53 m | 4.51 m | |
Width: | 1.75 m | 1.76 m | |
Height: | 1.68 m | 1.68 m | |
Both cars are similar in size. Honda CR-V is 2 cm longer than the Nissan X-Trail, 1 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
Trunk capacity: | 375 litres | 410 litres | |
Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
670 litres | 1841 litres | |
Nissan X-Trail has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Honda CR-V has 35 litres less trunk space than the Nissan X-Trail. This could mean that the Honda CR-V 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 Nissan X-Trail (by 1171 litres). | |||
Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11 meters | |
The turning circle of the Honda CR-V is 0.4 metres less than that of the Nissan X-Trail, which means Honda CR-V can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`900 | ~ 2`010 | |
Safety: | no data | no data | |
Quality: | high | above average | |
Average price (€): | 1400 | 2200 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Honda CR-V has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |