Honda CR-V 2013 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 185 HP | 167 HP | |
| Torque: | 221 NM | 222 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is a more dynamic driving. Honda CR-V engine produces 18 HP more power than Mitsubishi Outlander, but torque is 1 NM less than Mitsubishi Outlander. Despite the higher power, Honda CR-V reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 7.9 | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Honda CR-V consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Honda CR-V could require 75 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi Outlander 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) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 170 mm (6.7 inches) | 216 mm (8.5 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mitsubishi Outlander 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 380'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 13 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.55 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.68 m | |
| Honda CR-V is 11 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Outlander, 2 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Seats: | 5 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 589 litres | 292 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 292 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 589 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1669 litres | 1792 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 123 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda CR-V is 1.2 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means Honda CR-V can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | no data | 2`210 kg | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mitsubishi Outlander scores higher in safety tests. The Mitsubishi Outlander scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Honda CR-V has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Outlander has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 10 000 | 8200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda CR-V has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |