Land Rover Freelander 2003 vs Honda CR-V 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 112 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 260 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.3 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Honda CR-V is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Freelander engine produces 28 HP less power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 80 NM less than Honda CR-V. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Freelander reaches 100 km/h speed 4.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Freelander consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Freelander could require 285 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Freelander consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| Honda CR-V gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
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 Land Rover Freelander engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda Accord, Honda FR-V | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Land Rover Freelander engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| Honda CR-V 2004 2.2 engine: Honda’s first diesel engine featured an aluminum block, a variable-geometry turbocharger, second-generation Bosch Common Rail injection, 16-valve cylinder head, and a balance shaft integrated into the crankcase. The ... More about Honda CR-V 2004 2.2 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.45 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.71 m | |
| Land Rover Freelander is 19 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V, 3 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 525 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 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Land Rover Freelander has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Honda CR-V has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Land Rover Freelander, so Land Rover Freelander quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 2600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.6/10 | 8.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Freelander has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |