Subaru Outback 2003 vs Honda Accord 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Subaru Outback) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Honda Accord) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 173 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 227 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.9 seconds | 10.1 seconds | |
|
Honda Accord is a more dynamic driving. Subaru Outback engine produces 33 HP more power than Honda Accord, but torque is 113 NM less than Honda Accord. Despite the higher power, Subaru Outback reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.7 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Honda Accord is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Subaru Outback consumes 2.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Subaru Outback could require 435 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Subaru Outback consumes 3.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 1120 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 1350 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 1010 km with real consumption | ||
| Honda Accord 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) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 370'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda CR-V, 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 Accord 2005 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 Accord 2005 2.2 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.73 m | 4.75 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.47 m | |
| Subaru Outback is 2 cm shorter than the Honda Accord, 1 cm wider, while the height of Subaru Outback is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 572 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1657 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru Outback is 0.8 metres less than that of the Honda Accord, which means Subaru Outback can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`930 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 2000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.0/10 | 9.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Outback has
|
Honda Accord has
| |