Honda CR-V 2010 vs Mazda CX-7 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 260 HP | |
| Torque: | 192 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 8.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-7 is a more dynamic driving. Honda CR-V engine produces 110 HP less power than Mazda CX-7, whereas torque is 188 NM less than Mazda CX-7. Due to the lower power, Honda CR-V reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.1 | 10.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 11.6 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda CR-V consumes 2.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-7, which means that by driving the Honda CR-V over 15,000 km in a year you can save 345 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda CR-V consumes 2.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-7. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 69 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 660 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 620 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
| Honda CR-V gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 320'000 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 Honda CR-V engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Honda Accord | Used also on Mazda 3 | |
| 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. | |||
| Honda CR-V 2010 2.0 engine: This engine is sensitive to both fuel and oil quality. Using low-grade gasoline can quickly damage the catalytic converter and lead to premature failure of the oxygen sensors.
Many Honda owners are annoyed ... More about Honda CR-V 2010 2.0 engine Mazda CX-7 2009 2.3 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its capacity is quite limited. The engine also requires high quality fuel and tends to use more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.53 m | 4.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.65 m | |
|
Honda CR-V is smaller, but slightly higher. Honda CR-V is 17 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-7, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Honda CR-V is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 524 litres | 455 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1532 litres | 774 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, The Mazda CX-7 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 758 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda CR-V is 0.4 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-7, which means Honda CR-V can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`050 kg | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 6800 | 4600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda CR-V has
|
Mazda CX-7 has
| |