2004 Holden UTE vs. 2009 Honda CR-V
To start off, 2009 Honda CR-V is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Holden UTE. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Holden UTE would be higher. At 3,791 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Holden UTE is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Holden UTE (204 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 40 more horse power than 2009 Honda CR-V. (164 HP @ 5800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Holden UTE should accelerate faster than 2009 Honda CR-V.
Because 2004 Holden UTE is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2004 Holden UTE. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Honda CR-V, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2004 Holden UTE (305 Nm @ 3600 RPM) has 144 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Honda CR-V. (161 Nm @ 4200 RPM). This means 2004 Holden UTE will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Honda CR-V.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Holden UTE | 2009 Honda CR-V | |
Make | Holden | Honda |
Model | UTE | CR-V |
Year Released | 2004 | 2009 |
Body Type | Pickup | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3791 cc | 2354 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 204 HP | 164 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 5800 RPM |
Torque | 305 Nm | 161 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 4200 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5060 mm | 3910 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1830 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2950 mm | 2630 mm |