Honda CR-V 2004 vs BMW X3 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 330 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
BMW X3 is a more dynamic driving. Honda CR-V engine produces 10 HP less power than BMW X3, but torque is 10 NM more than BMW X3. Due to the lower power, Honda CR-V reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda CR-V consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3, which means that by driving the Honda CR-V over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda CR-V consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 67 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 860 km in combined cycle | 930 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1130 km on highway | ||
| 770 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW X3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a BMW X3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda Accord, Honda FR-V | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including BMW 3 sērija, BMW 1 sērija | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Honda CR-V might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The BMW X3 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.56 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.67 m | |
| Honda CR-V is 8 cm longer than the BMW X3, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Honda CR-V is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 525 litres | 480 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
952 litres | 1560 litres | |
| Honda CR-V has 45 litres more trunk space than the BMW X3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in BMW X3 (by 608 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda CR-V is 1.4 metres less than that of the BMW X3, which means Honda CR-V can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`255 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Honda CR-V has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW X3 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 4800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda CR-V has
|
BMW X3 has
| |