Honda CR-V 2012 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 195 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
| Honda CR-V and Mitsubishi Outlander have the same engine power, but Honda CR-V torque is 5 NM less than Mitsubishi Outlander. Honda CR-V reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 6.8 | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Honda CR-V consumes 1.1 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 165 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi Outlander gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 350'000 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: | 19 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Honda Accord | Used only for this car | |
| 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 2012 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 2012 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.57 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.68 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Honda CR-V is 8 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Outlander, 2 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 589 litres | 145 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1669 litres | 986 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Honda CR-V has 444 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Outlander. The Mitsubishi Outlander 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 683 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 (kg): | 2`100 | no data | |
| 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 (€): | 11 600 | 9200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda CR-V has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |