Honda CR-V 1997 vs Ford Maverick 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.3 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 128 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 182 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
| Honda CR-V engine produces 22 HP less power than Ford Maverick, whereas torque is 18 NM less than Ford Maverick. Despite less power, Honda CR-V reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 | 11.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.6 l/100km | 10.9 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda CR-V consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Maverick, which means that by driving the Honda CR-V over 15,000 km in a year you can save 150 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda CR-V consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Maverick. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 570 km in combined cycle | 550 km in combined cycle | |
| 670 km on highway | 720 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Honda CR-V 1997: 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. Ford Maverick 2000: The AWD system typically directs the majority of the engine`s power to the front wheels. If slippage is detected at the front, power is quickly redirected to the rear wheels via a Rotary Blade Coupling, which can transfer up to 100% of the power to rear axis. Switching the system from `Auto` to `On` locks the front and rear axles at a 50/50 split and reduces the reaction time needed to engage the rear wheels through an integrated bypass clutch. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.53 m | 4.44 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.76 m | |
| Honda CR-V is 9 cm longer than the Ford Maverick, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Honda CR-V is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 375 litres | 985 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
670 litres | no data | |
|
Ford Maverick has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Honda CR-V has 610 litres less trunk space than the Ford Maverick. 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. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`900 | 1`978 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda CR-V has
|
Ford Maverick has
| |