Honda CR-V 2010 vs Volvo XC60 2008
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Honda CR-V is available only with four wheel (4x4) drive, while Volvo XC60 can be equipped with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Volvo XC60 also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 2.0 - 2.4 | 2.0 - 3.2 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 - 166 HP | 163 - 285 HP | |
| Torque: | 192 - 350 NM | 300 - 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 - 12.2 seconds | 7.5 - 10.9 seconds | |
| In general, Volvo XC60 are available with more powerful and dynamic engines than Honda CR-V. Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.5 - 9.5 | 6.0 - 11.9 | |
|
Honda CR-V petrol engines consumes on average 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than Volvo XC60. On average, Honda CR-V equipped with diesel engines consume 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 170 - 185 mm (6.7 - 7.3 inches) | 230 mm (9.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Volvo XC60 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.55 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Honda CR-V is smaller. Honda CR-V is 9 cm shorter than the Volvo XC60, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Honda CR-V is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 524 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1532 litres | 1455 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, The Volvo XC60 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Honda CR-V (by 77 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 12.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda CR-V is 0.3 metres less than that of the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Gross weight: | ~ 2`113 kg | ~ 2`490 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 1`684 kg | ~ 1`789 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 429 kg | ~ 701 kg | |
| Honda CR-V load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 63 procentiem less than Volvo XC60. Therefore, Volvo XC60 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Average price (€): | 6600 | 7400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda CR-V has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |