Volvo XC60 2013 vs Honda CR-V 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 181 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 420 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
| Volvo XC60 engine produces 31 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 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 6.7 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 0.3 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 45 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Volvo XC60 consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1320 km in combined cycle | 1030 km in combined cycle | |
| 1420 km on highway | 1130 km on highway | ||
| 930 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo XC60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Volvo XC60 2013: This Volvo has Haldex Generation V proactive automatic four-wheel drive. It analyzes input from the ABS and engine control units and can increase pressure on the multi-disc clutch for faster application when needed. During normal driving, the torque split is 100% to the front and no torque to the rear. If wheel spin is detected, torque can be split evenly between the axles (50% to 50%). 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.65 m | |
|
Volvo XC60 is larger. Volvo XC60 is 12 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 7 cm wider, while the height of Volvo XC60 is 6 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`270 | 2`200 | |
| 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
| |