Land Rover Freelander 2003 vs Honda CR-V 2004
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.8 - 2.5 | 2.0 - 2.4 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 112 - 177 HP | 140 - 162 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 - 260 NM | 190 - 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 - 15.3 seconds | 10.6 - 12 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 - 12.4 | 6.7 - 10.1 | |
|
Land Rover Freelander petrol engines consumes on average 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than Honda CR-V. On average, Land Rover Freelander equipped with diesel engines consume 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.42 m | 4.61 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.72 m | 1.71 m | |
| Land Rover Freelander is 19 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V, 3 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Freelander is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 527 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 952 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Freelander is 1 metres more than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Land Rover Freelander can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`000 | ~ 1`910 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 2600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.6/10 | 8.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Honda CR-V has
| |