2004 Honda CR-V vs. 2009 Land Rover LR2
To start off, 2009 Land Rover LR2 is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Honda CR-V. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Honda CR-V would be higher. At 3,192 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Land Rover LR2 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Land Rover LR2 (227 HP @ 6300 RPM) has 67 more horse power than 2004 Honda CR-V. (160 HP @ 6300 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Land Rover LR2 should accelerate faster than 2004 Honda CR-V.
Both vehicles are four wheel drive (4WD) - it offers better handling, traction, and control in all driving conditions compared with front wheel drive or rear wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2009 Land Rover LR2 (234 Nm) has 14 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Honda CR-V. (220 Nm). This means 2009 Land Rover LR2 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Honda CR-V.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Honda CR-V | 2009 Land Rover LR2 | |
Make | Honda | Land Rover |
Model | CR-V | LR2 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2009 |
Body Type | SUV | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2360 cc | 3192 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 160 HP | 227 HP |
Engine RPM | 6300 RPM | 6300 RPM |
Torque | 220 Nm | 234 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 87 mm | 84 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 99 mm | 96 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.6:1 | 10.8:1 |
Drive Type | 4WD | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1910 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.1 L/100km | 10.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 10.7 L/100km | 14.9 L/100km |