Volvo XC60 2009 vs Honda CR-V 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 175 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 420 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo XC60 engine produces 25 HP more power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 70 NM more than Honda CR-V. Thanks to more power Volvo XC60 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.9 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC60 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC60 consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that by driving the Volvo XC60 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC60 consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 1010 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo XC60 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: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Volvo XC60 2008: The car is fitted with Haldex Generation IV proactive automatic all-wheel drive. Haldex processes data from the ABS control unit and the engine control unit and can increase the pressure on the multi-disc clutch for faster engagement when required. It has a 100% front to 0% rear torque split when not engaged with a maximum 50% to 50% torque split between axes. Honda CR-V 2010: Car features Honda`s real-time four-wheel-drive system, which sends torque to the front wheels under normal conditions. A multi-plate clutch transfers torque to the rear axle when wheel slip is identified (pressure is provided to the clutch by a dual-pump system). To allow ABS to work seamlessly, the clutch is also disengaged during braking. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.63 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.68 m | |
|
Volvo XC60 is larger. Volvo XC60 is 11 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 7 cm wider, while the height of Volvo XC60 is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 495 litres | 524 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1455 litres | no data | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, This could mean that the Volvo XC60 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC60 is 0.1 metres more than that of the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`505 kg | 2`160 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Honda CR-V has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo XC60 has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8000 | 7000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC60 has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |