Honda CR-V 2012 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.3 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
| Honda CR-V and Mitsubishi Outlander have the same engine power, but Honda CR-V torque is 30 NM less than Mitsubishi Outlander. Honda CR-V reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Honda CR-V consumes 0.2 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 30 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Honda CR-V consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1030 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1130 km on highway | 1270 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 840 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 480'000 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 Mitsubishi Outlander engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda Accord | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi L 200, Mitsubishi ASX | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Outlander might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.53 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.68 m | |
| Honda CR-V is 13 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Outlander, 2 cm wider, while the height of Honda CR-V is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 589 litres | 220 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 369 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`200 | 2`170 | |
| 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
| |