Honda CR-V vs Nissan X-TRAIL

What's the difference?

The Honda CR-V L7’s redesign wins in my book. It looks modern and its tech feels up to date. The boot is a bit awkward to use and the comfort with that back seat could improve, but otherwise it is a solid family car. The bonus of having those two extra seats in a medium SUV is great for families who need the flexibility.

My son didn’t gush about this one but did mention how awesome his view was!

You’re looking at are two of the very best medium-sized SUVs out there. Regardless of price and position. Honestly, either should bring many years of sterling service.

Which one is for you depends on what that service needs to be.

The X-Trail e-Power is the better family-car allrounder, hands down, because of offers way more metal for the money, making it roomier and more practical. It’s also quieter, for some of the time at least.

But the ZR-V is athletic, agile and involving in a way the Nissan could never be. It’s also better equipped at this price point. And despite being from half-a-segment below, it’s still competitively packaged and feels from a class above.

We should be comparing this charming Honda against the Audi Q5 Sportback and BMW X4, it’s that special. 

Whichever you choose, Toyota really needs to pull something out of the box with the next-gen RAV4 to beat these two.

Honda has absolutely nailed the design of this generation CR-V! The previous model was nice to look at but by getting rid of all of the bulbous cutaways (especially in the rear) and lifting the old sloping nose, we now have a design that seems far more purposeful for this SUV class.

The LED exterior lights, including sequential turn signals and daytime-running lights at the front, are long and enhance the larger shape. The L7 sports a few black intake vents and an extended grille, which makes it look more robust, as well.

Before we kick off on design, here are two annoying facts about the Honda.

First off, apparently ZR-V stands for Gen-Z Recreational Vehicle. Trying hard much, Honda?

Or maybe not trying hard enough. In Australia, the ZR-V colour range is pitiful, with just five choices against the Nissan’s dozen.

Please, at least import the 'Aqua Green' and 'Petrol Blue', as offered in Japan. Or better still, inject some actual rainbow variety.

Anyway, rant over.

Meanwhile, the X-Trail’s tastiest angle is the rear-three-quarter, which also reveals the chunky wide stance, nice glass-to-body ratio and clean surfacing.

Up front, though, it’s looking fussy and even a bit dated already. Nissan’s facelifted this look (it’s a three-year old one) in North America, where it’s sold as the Rogue. Check it out. No better really.

And we’re still years away from seeing that happen here, as our models are made in Japan. Like with the ZR-V.

Overall, though, both are fine-looking SUVs, though the Nissan’s styling seems more original.

For a medium SUV, the cabin is fairly practical with its use of space but front passengers definitely benefit the most.

I have plenty of head- and legroom for my 168cm (5'6") height and while the seats feel a tad narrow, they’re extremely comfortable.

The black leather-accented trims are nice under hand and its great that both front seats feature electric adjustments but it’s a shame that only the driver’s side has adjustable lumbar support.

The heat function is also a nice touch and helps elevate the premium feel of the interior.

There are two cupholders in the front and middle rows, as well as drink bottle holders in each door.

The third row also gets a couple of cool fold-out drink bottle holders but if your drink is skinny, it may move around a little as the base doesn’t have a raised lip.

Charging options are good with a wireless charging pad, a 12-volt port, as well as, a USB-A and USB-C sockets up front while the middle row gets a couple of USB-C jacks. Third rowers miss out completely, though.

The rest of the technology is modern and is easy to use, which to me is the perfect combo. The 9.0-inch touchscreen multimedia system is responsive to touch and looks great.

It’s easy to connect to the wireless Apple CarPlay and there is also wired Android Auto for those users. The 7.0-inch partial digital instrument panel is easy to read and has traffic sign recognition.

The only space which feels awkward is the boot space. The third row doesn’t fold flat and that makes a ledge. You can flatten it out with a small panel that slides into position at the front but it's dicky to look at and use.

That said, it is a good size at 472L with the third row stowed and you can bump that capacity up to 1457L.

You get a temporary spare tyre in the L7 and a hands-free powered tailgate, which is always handy!

Advantage: X-Trail. Families seeking space in a larger-than-usual mid-sized SUV need look no further.

Before we go on, remember, our photos show the Ti but the base ST-L that matches the ZR-V LX’s price point features an 8.0-inch (rather than 12.3-inch) central screen, more-traditional analogue instrumentation cluster with a 7.0-inch TFT screen, non-leather seat trim and conventional, rather than camera, interior mirror.

Regardless, you’re also likely to notice how large and airy the X-Trail interior is, with easy access to all five seats thanks to very wide-opening doors, revealing an interior offering heaps of legroom, headroom and shoulder room.

The X-Trail trumps the ZR-V with 205 litres more cargo capacity at 575L versus 370L. But in reality, both offer a decently-sized opening to help make loading bulky things inside easy.

There are low flat floors with sufficient depth and width for plenty of gear and a few nooks and crannies for additional items.

Keep in mind that neither carry spare wheels. You get a can of goo and an air pump instead. Not good enough for many rural drivers.

And that X-Trail hybrid's boot space is 10L less than the five-seat petrol-only versions, but much bigger than the 465L offered up in the seven-seat variants (also petrol-only). And speaking of internal combustion processes…

Now, hang on. Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply compare the X-Trail e-Power with the recently-released Honda CR-V e:HEV RS range-topper?

They are, after all, roughly the same size.

And the answer would be yes, except the new CR-V hybrid is $60,000 drive-away, while you can buy a base X-Trail ST-L e-Power from under $55K drive-away… which just happens to be exactly how much the ZR-V e:HEV LX costs.

Do please keep in mind that cheaper versions of both Hondas are in the pipeline for Australia.

But considering the X-Trail ST-L costs the same price as the ZR-V LX, it lacks the latter’s 12-speaker Bose audio upgrade, leather upholstery, heated steering wheel, powered front-passenger seat, heated rear seats, wireless Apple CarPlay, wireless charger, reverse-tilt exterior mirrors, interior air purifier and hands-free powered tailgate with walkaway closing.

For an electric tailgate, leather and smartphone charger, you’ll need to step up to X-Trail Ti e-Power (as tested) from $54,690, before on-road costs, or just under $60K when drive-away costs are factored in, giving the ZR-V LX hybrid a handy $5K start.

However, the Ti does bring its own little exclusive luxuries, like tri-zone climate control, adaptive matrix LED headlights, a panoramic sunroof, exterior-mirror camera view, and 19-inch alloys – though you’ll need to fork out for the range-topping X-Trail Ti-L from $57,160, before on-road costs, (or nearly $63K drive-away to more-fully match most of the ZR-V LX hybrid’s spec.)

Advantage Honda. But, like we said, the Nissan has great big size on its side. And it has two electric motors for all-wheel drive – something the ZR-V has no reply for.

Unless you're looking at the hybrid variant, all CR-V's share the same 1.5-litre, four-cylinder turbo-petrol engine. The L7 is a front-wheel drive and has maximum outputs of 140kW and 240Nm.

The L7 features a continuously variable auto transmission but it’s delightfully smooth and the engine has enough guts to make it a pleasant open-roader but you have to be consistent with the accelerator on hills.

One of the biggest differences between these and the Toyota RAV4 hybrid is that these two contestants offer a significantly fuller EV experience.

Why? The Nissan’s petrol engine never powers any of the driven wheels, but instead drives one or both electric motors to make it all-wheel drive (AWD).

The Honda, meanwhile, uses its petrol engine to sometimes drive an electric motor, but mostly powers the front wheels, making it front-wheel drive (or 2WD in SUV marketing-speak).

Still, from behind the wheel, they’re remarkably similar in how they feel and behave, even if they sound completely different on the road.

Now, this might seem like a free kick for the muscular X-Trail, but the power-to-weight ratio difference evens the score more than you might expect: the 1.9-tonne (1903kg) Nissan pumps out 82.6kW/tonne, compared to our 1.6-tonne (1586kg) Honda’s 85.1kW/tonne.

The result? The latter’s 300kg-plus advantage and lower, sleeker shape means that, against our stopwatch, there was very little in it between the two hybrids – 7.1 vs 7.6s in favour of the gutsier Nissan. But it was only about 0.2s for most of that, until the X-Trail’s extra torque finally overcame that extra mass.

That said, during our 70-100km/h overtaking manoeuvre, both needed 2.9s, again highlighting the Honda’s lightness, while braking hard from 100-0km/h the ZR-V stopped three metres shorter at 39.2m. Again, blame the Nissan’s weight.

Keeping all that performance in check in both SUVs, by the way, are MacPherson-style struts up front and a multi-link rear end.

The L7 has an official combined cycle fuel economy figure of 7.3L/100km and my real-world usage averaged 8.3L/100km.

That's after a week of mostly open-road driving, so I would expect it to be higher in an urban setting but it’s a solid result.

Honda recommends minimum 91 RON petrol and based on the combined cycle figure and the 53-litre fuel tank, expect a driving range of around 780km.

Here’s another key difference. Officially, the Honda averages 5.0 litres per 100km while the Nissan should average 6.1L. But in reality…

During our week with both hybrid SUVs that included a lot of inner-urban schlepping as well as spirited driving and repeated performance testing – which tends to sap the fuel – the ZR-V averaged 7.3L/100km versus 8.6 for the X-Trail.

Note that the latter requires the more-expensive 95 RON premium-unleaded brew, too.

For the record, the car’s computer read 6.1 in the Honda and 7.4 in the Nissan, while the official combined average carbon dioxide emissions figures are 114 and 139g/km respectively.

The latter’s 55L tank means it should theoretically achieve around 900km between refills, against its rival’s 1140km from a 57L tank.

And just in case you’re wondering, the X-Trail’s lithium-ion battery is pretty modest at 2.1kWh, but that’s exactly twice as large as the ZR-V’s. Neither require to be plugged in, since - as mentioned earlier - the petrol engines do the charging.

The CR-V has pleasant road manners and is fairly responsive with power without sounding too tinny when you have to put your foot down. It can lurch a little in stop/start traffic but is otherwise a very easy car to get around in.

The CVT is smooth and there’s no lag as can be the case with other CVTs at lower speeds. The suspension is medium-feeling and while you’ll feel the bumps, it’s pretty well-cushioned.

The L7 has active noise cancellation technology and that means the cabin is quiet, even at higher speeds, and you can chat easily with all occupants.

If you were taking either of these mid-sized hybrid SUVs on a short test-drive around urban streets, you might be forgiven for thinking the way they go and feel is almost indistinguishable.

Light, ultra-smooth and responsive all the way.

At lower speeds, both are easy to park, with sufficiently tight turning circles and aided by the surround-view cameras that shouldn’t be an issue for anybody to accurately place. Plus, there’s a decent degree of ride comfort to enjoy as well.

Understandably, for most folk behind the wheel, they’d struggle to them apart, truthfully.

The 2.0L four's engagement after a brief all-EV driving period is seamless, by the way, and also typically-Honda in the way that it revs freely, sounding urgent as it delivers its torque consistently, even at low speeds.

Put your foot down more, and the electric assistance comes into play again, providing a decent whack of speed – more so than you might initially expect. And all of this is provided with a refinement and civility you’d expect in a much more premium machine.

Other plus points include yet another subtle traction/ESC tune over gravel tracks, but one with a degree of looseness for a bit of fun if the driver is up for it, paddles that provide some EV regen-braking e-Pedal-style to slow you down, and a nifty drive-mode toggle that can be easily prodded by the driver without distraction. A sign of the enthusiasts who engineered this sporty SUV.

The only fly in the Honda’s driving ointment is noise. Too much road roar over coarse chip surfaces, and excessive wind rush from the large exterior mirrors.

Otherwise, the ZR-V is exceptionally accomplished dynamically for any modern family vehicle, and not just a medium-sized hybrid SUV. Not perfect, but massively impressive and delightful.

Only the X-Trail has an ANCAP crash test rating, and it’s achieved five stars, based on the smaller Qashqai “partner model”.

While ANCAP has yet to test the ZR-V, Euro NCAP recently awarded the Honda four out of five stars, citing it was “just below the five-star performance thresholds” due to slightly below-par adult side-impact protection where the front occupants’ heads can make contact, as well as safety-assist system anomalies whereby traffic-sign recognition and driver monitoring tech that do not default to ‘on’ or only operate above 45km/h, respectively.

Both models offer lots of driver-assist safety equipment, like Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) with pedestrian and cyclist detection, blind-spot alert, lane-keep assist systems, adaptive cruise control with full stop-go function, a driver fatigue monitor, auto high beams, traffic sign recognition, front/rear parking sensors, anti-lock braking system with brake assist, 'Electronic Brake-force Distribution', hill-start assist, stability control and traction control.

However, there are omissions: the Honda misses out on the Nissan’s rear AEB with pedestrian and cyclist calibration, while the Nissan’s seven airbag rating trails the Honda’s 11 – which includes full side airbag protection for outboard rear-seat occupants.

Both vehicles also include ISOFIX child-seat latches fitted to outboard rear seat positions, while a trio of top tethers for straps are included across the rear bench.

Note that Honda’s AEB system is operational from 5.0-180km/h according to Euro NCAP, the lane support systems work between 65-180km/h and the traffic-jam assist tech works between 0-72km/h.

The Nissan’s AEB kicks in from 5.0-130km/h, pedestrian and cyclist AEB from 5.0-80km/h, and the lane support systems work between 60-250km/h.

Honda shows up some of its competition with its ownership costs! With the CR-V you’ll enjoy a five-year/unlimited km warranty, as well as, a five-year capped price servicing program.

Services are a flat $199 per service, which is cheap for the class but servicing intervals could be annoying if you put a lot of kays on your car because they’re set at every 12 months or 10,000km, whichever occurs first (15,000km is more common).

Both Nissan and Honda offer a five-year/unlimited kilometre warranty that also includes roadside assistance.

But the ZR-V goes one better with a no-cost subscription to Honda Connect for remote vehicle operation, location and geo-fencing if required. Clever.

The Honda’s servicing intervals are every 12 months or 10,000km, with capped price servicing pegged at an annual flat fee of $199 for the first five years. That’s under $1000 over that period of time.

Nissan, meanwhile, matches all that, bar the 'Honda Connect' tech, and offers six years of capped-price servicing.

But at the five-year mark, the X-Trail e-Power costs over $1300 more than the ZR-V hybrid.