Volvo XC60 2013 vs Honda CR-V 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| 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: | 306 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.9 seconds | 12.8 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo XC60 engine produces 156 HP more power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 210 NM more than Honda CR-V. Thanks to more power Volvo XC60 reaches 100 km/h speed 5.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.1 l/100km | 9.2 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 Volvo XC60 consumes 0.4 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 60 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Volvo XC60 consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 950 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 630 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo XC60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Honda CR-V 2012: Vehicle has automatic four-wheel drive system that sends torque to front wheels under normal conditions. Electronically controlled multi-plate clutch transfers torque to rear axle when wheel slip is detected. The all-wheel drive system constantly interacts with the VSA dynamic stabilization system and electric power steering to provide full vehicle control, good traction and maneuverability in all road conditions. | |||
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: | 4 years | 18 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: | 4.64 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.69 m | |
|
Volvo XC60 is larger. Volvo XC60 is 7 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 7 cm wider, while the height of Volvo XC60 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 495 litres | 589 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1455 litres | 1669 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Volvo XC60 has 94 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. This could mean that the Volvo XC60 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 Honda CR-V (by 214 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.7 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC60 is 0.1 metres less than that of the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`390 | 2`100 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Honda CR-V has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 16 000 | 12 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 7.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC60 has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |