Subaru Forester 2000 vs Honda CR-V 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 147 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 182 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.4 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Subaru Forester is more dynamic to drive. Subaru Forester engine produces 23 HP more power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 58 NM more than Honda CR-V. Thanks to more power Subaru Forester reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.9 | 9.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.4 l/100km | 9.6 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 Subaru Forester consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Subaru Forester could require 30 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Subaru Forester consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 590 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km on highway | 690 km on highway | ||
| 520 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 460'000 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: | 9 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Honda Accord | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.45 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.58 m | 1.68 m | |
|
Subaru Forester is smaller. Subaru Forester is 8 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Subaru Forester is 10 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 406 litres | 375 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1525 litres | 670 litres | |
|
Subaru Forester has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, The Honda CR-V 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 Subaru Forester (by 855 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru Forester is 0.2 metres more than that of the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`935 kg | 1`900 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`445 kg | 1`490 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 490 kg | 410 kg | |
| Subaru Forester load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 16 procentiem more than Honda CR-V. Therefore, Subaru Forester is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Subaru Forester has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Honda CR-V has serious deffects in 85 percent more cases than Subaru Forester, so Subaru Forester quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Forester has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |