Nissan X-Trail T32 vs Honda CR-V: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Nissan · 2013–2022
X-Trail T32
- Power
- 118 kW160 PS
- Kerb mass
- -
Honda · 2016–2022
CR-V
- Power
- 110 kW150 PS
- Kerb mass
- 1,685 kg
Photo: EurovisionNim / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
- City Too close to call Length: 4,640 mm vs 4,570 mm
In plain words
Nissan X-Trail T32 has more power: 118 kW (160 PS) against 110 kW (150 PS) for Honda CR-V. Nissan X-Trail T32 is 70 mm longer than Honda CR-V (4,640 mm vs 4,570 mm). Nissan X-Trail T32 is the older design (from 2013); Honda CR-V arrived in 2016. Our catalog has no kerb mass for the Nissan X-Trail T32 yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Size and weight
Side view to scale, all cars from the front bumper.
| X-Trail T32 | CR-V | |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4,640 mm182.7 in † | 4,570 mm179.9 in −70 mm −2.8 in −1.5% |
| Width | 1,820 mm71.7 in † | 1,820 mm71.7 in |
| Height | 1,710 mm67.3 in † | 1,657 mm65.2 in † −53 mm −2.1 in −3.1% |
| Wheelbase | 2,705 mm106.5 in † | 2,620 mm103.1 in −85 mm −3.3 in −3.1% |
| Fits a standard garage? | Yes | Yes |
Difference vs X-Trail T32 (±). Garage check: a standard single garage takes a car up to about 5.0 m (16 ft 5 in) long and 1.9 m (6 ft 3 in) wide (width as listed in the catalog; some makers include the mirrors). Leave about 0.6 m (2 ft) to open the doors. † from another version of this generation.
Full specifications
| Nissan X-Trail T32 | Honda CR-V | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 1.3 DIG-T petrol · 118 kW (160 PS) | 2.0 · petrol · 110 kW (150 PS) |
| Production years | 2013–2022 | 2016–2022 |
| Body | SUV | SUV |
| Class | SUV / crossover | SUV / crossover |
| Country | Japan | Japan |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 118 kW (160 PS) 158 hp Better | 110 kW (150 PS) 148 hp |
| Power, all versions | 96–130 kW (131–177 PS) 129–174 hp | 88–142 kW (120–193 PS) 118–190 hp |
| Power per tonne | No data | 65 kW/t 79 hp/ton calculated |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | No data | Petrol |
| Engine | No data | 2,000 cc · 4 cyl 2.0 l |
| Gearbox | dual-clutch | No data |
| Drive | Four-wheel drive (4×4) | No data |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,640 mm 182.7 in † | 4,570 mm 179.9 in |
| Width | 1,820 mm 71.7 in † | 1,820 mm 71.7 in |
| Height | 1,710 mm 67.3 in † | 1,657 mm 65.2 in † |
| Wheelbase | 2,705 mm 106.5 in † | 2,620 mm 103.1 in |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | No data | 1,685 kg 3,715 lb |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | 135 l 4.8 cu ft | No data |
| Fuel tank Why it matters: A larger tank means more distance between fuel stops. | 60 l 15.9 gal US † | No data |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | No data | 7.9 l/100 km 29.8 mpg US |
| CO₂ | No data | 156 g/km |
| Fuel cost per year | No data | €2,070/year estimated |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | ★★★★★ (2014) | ★★★★★ (2019) |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (4): Body, Class, Country, Width.
Better marks the stronger figure - only for measurable specs (power, torque, 0–100 km/h, consumption, boot, weight).
Estimated at 15,000 km a year with fuel at €1.75/l petrol. † from another version of this generation.