Volvo XC90 2002 vs Honda CR-V 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.9 Petrol | 2.4 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: | 272 HP | 162 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Volvo XC90 engine produces 110 HP more power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 160 NM more than Honda CR-V. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 13.0 | 10.1 | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Volvo XC90 consumes 2.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo XC90 could require 435 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 530 km in combined cycle | 570 km in combined cycle | |
| 720 km on highway | 610 km on highway | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 480'000 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: | 5 years | 15 years | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volvo XC90 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Volvo XC90 is larger. Volvo XC90 is 26 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 12 cm wider, while the height of Volvo XC90 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 249 litres | 525 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2404 litres | 952 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Volvo XC90 has 276 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. This could mean that the Volvo XC90 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 Volvo XC90 (by 1452 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.7 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`760 | 1`910 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Honda CR-V has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo XC90 has serious deffects in 105 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 2600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.1/10 | 8.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC90 has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |