Subaru Outback 2003 vs Honda CR-V 2006
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Subaru Outback is available only with four wheel (4x4) drive, while Honda CR-V can be equipped with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Honda CR-V also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 2.5 - 3.0 (petrol) | 2.0 - 2.4 (petrol, diesel) | |
| Both cars are available with petrol engines. Honda CR-V is available also with diesel engines. Diesel engines typically offer better fuel efficiency and higher torque compared to other engine types. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 165 - 250 HP | 140 - 166 HP | |
| Torque: | 226 - 339 NM | 192 - 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.5 - 10.9 seconds | 10.2 - 12.2 seconds | |
| In general, Subaru Outback are available with more powerful and dynamic engines than Honda CR-V. Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 - 10.5 | 6.5 - 9.5 | |
|
Subaru Outback petrol engines consumes on average 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than 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! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.75 m | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.56 m | 1.68 m | |
| Subaru Outback is 23 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Subaru Outback is 12 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 459 litres | 556 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1649 litres | 1532 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, This could mean that the Subaru Outback uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Subaru Outback (by 117 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru Outback is 1 metres less than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Subaru Outback can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | ~ 1`944 kg | ~ 2`098 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 1`495 kg | ~ 1`556 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 449 kg | ~ 542 kg | |
| Subaru Outback load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 21 procentiem less than Honda CR-V. Therefore, Honda CR-V is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 4600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.0/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Outback has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |