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
- 117 kW159 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- 11.5 s
- Top speed
- 198 km/h
- Kerb mass
- 1,560 kg
Version spec sheet All generations
Photo: Vauxford / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0
Honda · 2016–2022
CR-V
- Power
- 110 kW150 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- -
- Top speed
- -
- 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.
Categories won: X-Trail T32 2 CR-V 1
- City CR-V Length: 4,570 mm vs 4,690 mm
- Performance X-Trail T32 Power per tonne: 75 kW/t vs 65 kW/t
- Running costs X-Trail T32 Fuel per year: €1,650 vs €2,070 (estimated)
In plain words
Nissan X-Trail T32 has more power: 117 kW (159 PS) against 110 kW (150 PS) for Honda CR-V. Nissan X-Trail T32 is 120 mm longer than Honda CR-V (4,690 mm vs 4,570 mm). Nissan X-Trail T32 is lighter by 125 kg (1,560 kg vs 1,685 kg). At 15,000 km a year, fuel would cost about €1,650 (Nissan X-Trail T32), €2,070 (Honda CR-V) (estimated). Nissan X-Trail T32 is the older design (from 2013); Honda CR-V arrived in 2016. On the catalog figures, the Honda CR-V is the pick for city; the Nissan X-Trail T32 is the pick for performance and running costs. Our catalog has no 0–100 km/h for the Honda CR-V yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Race Stats side by side
Each figure is a 0–100 score from the catalog numbers, the same as on the 1CARS Race cards. PI is the overall performance index (100–999) and its class D–S.
| Stat | X-Trail T32 | CR-V |
|---|---|---|
| PI | C · 443 | C · 437 |
| Power | 41 | 37 |
| Grip | 32 | 30 |
| Handling | 51 | 50 |
| Top speed | 38 | 35 |
| Launch | 26 | 35 |
Grip and handling are estimates from drive type, weight, height and body (hover a figure to see where it comes from). 1CARS Race
Who wins a race?
Quarter-mile (402 m) drag from a standing start, dry road, no reaction time - the 1CARS Race physics on the catalog figures of these versions.
- 1 CR-V2.0 · petrol · 110 kW (150 PS) 16.82 sat 130 km/h
- 2 X-Trail T321.3 DIG-T (160 PS) DCT · petrol · 117 kW (159 PS) 17.87 sat 122 km/h · +1.05 s
Size and weight
Side view to scale, all cars from the front bumper.
| X-Trail T32 | CR-V | |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4,690 mm184.6 in | 4,570 mm179.9 in −120 mm −4.7 in −2.6% |
| 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% |
| Kerb weight | 1,560 kg3,439 lb | 1,685 kg3,715 lb +125 kg +276 lb +8.0% |
| 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 (160 PS) DCT · petrol · 117 kW (159 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. | 117 kW (159 PS) 157 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 |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | 270 Nm 199 lb-ft | No data |
| 0–100 km/h Why it matters: A shorter 0–100 km/h time means quicker getaways and safer merging onto fast roads. | 11.5 s | No data |
| Top speed Why it matters: Top speed hints at how relaxed the car is at motorway speeds, even if you never reach it. | 198 km/h 123 mph | No data |
| Power per tonne | 75 kW/t 91 hp/ton calculated Better | 65 kW/t 79 hp/ton calculated |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Petrol | Petrol |
| Engine | 1,332 cc · 4 cyl 1.3 l | 2,000 cc · 4 cyl 2.0 l |
| Engine code | HR13 | No data |
| Gearbox | 7-speed dual-clutch | No data |
| Drive | Front-wheel drive | No data |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,690 mm 184.6 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. | 1,560 kg 3,439 lb Better | 1,685 kg 3,715 lb |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | 550 l 19.4 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. | 6.3 l/100 km 37.3 mpg US Better | 7.9 l/100 km 29.8 mpg US |
| CO₂ | 145 g/km Better | 156 g/km |
| Fuel cost per year | €1,650/year estimated Better | €2,070/year estimated |
| Range on a full tank | 952 km 592 mi estimated | No data |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | ★★★★★ (2014) | ★★★★★ (2019) |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (5): Body, Class, Country, Fuel, 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.