Subaru Outback 2013 vs Honda CR-V 2013
| 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: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 173 HP | 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 235 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Subaru Outback is more dynamic to drive. Subaru Outback engine produces 17 HP less power than Honda CR-V, but torque is 15 NM more than Honda CR-V. Despite less power, Subaru Outback reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 8.4 | |
|
The Subaru Outback is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Subaru Outback consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that by driving the Subaru Outback over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 1040 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| Subaru Outback gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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: | 350'000 km | 420'000 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: | 16 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Subaru Forester, Subaru Legacy | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Subaru Outback might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.55 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.61 m | 1.69 m | |
| Subaru Outback is 24 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, width is practically the same , while the height of Subaru Outback is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 526 litres | 589 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1669 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Subaru Outback has 63 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. This could mean that the Subaru Outback uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru Outback is 0.8 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 (kg): | 2`040 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Subaru Outback is better rated in child safety tests. The Subaru Outback scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 17 200 | 10 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Outback has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |