2013 Honda CRV 2.0S or 2013 Mitsu Montero GLX

**mortis** · April 1st, 2013 03:06 PM

Help please.... Thinking of upgrading to a bigger vehicle and have narrowed down the choices to these 2.

Honda CRV 2.0S Thailand PRO's
1. Good interior finish - feels more refined
2. Tried and tested Honda reliability
3. Proven after-sales support
4. Longer Maintenance interval (need to visit CASA every 6 months lang).
5. New body

Cons
1, Fuel Consumption
2. Maintenance Costs (every 6 months or 10k km whichever comes first)
3. Back portion does not look good.

Mitsu Montero Sport GLX PROs
1. Diesel - lower fuel costs
2. Maintenance - visit CASA every 5k km - actual consumption not like Honda which has time limit and km

Cons
1. Not sure about quality of service in CASA (based on feedback from TSIKOT Montero thread).
- no uniform standard from CASAs on what type of oil to be used/service policies etc.
2. Body has been there for quite a number of years
3. Interior not as refined as the CRV.

My family has been loyal to Honda, having gone thru the CRV 1st gen - 3rd gen and also thru the CIvics (from ESI to the FD). Had the boxtype Lancer for 11 years and we were quite happy with it, although had some bad experience with 2000 Galant.

Appreciate your advise/inputs.

Thanks

**renzo_d10** · April 1st, 2013 03:23 PM

Unless you need the Montero's extra seating capacity and taller ground clearance, then I'd get the CRV.

**niky** · April 1st, 2013 03:26 PM

Fuel consumption of the CR-V 2.0 is actually pretty decent. Probably better than the Montero Sport. I'd say around 6-8 km/l in traffic that will have the MS at 5-7. The balancing factor is that diesel is still cheaper than gasoline, so it evens out in the end.

**ano727** · April 1st, 2013 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by niky

Fuel consumption of the CR-V 2.0 is actually pretty decent. Probably better than the Montero Sport. I'd say around 6-8 km/l in traffic that will have the MS at 5-7. The balancing factor is that diesel is still cheaper than gasoline, so it evens out in the end.

My Monty 2009 GLS (non-VGT) AT is giving an average of 7.5km/liter with 100% city driving (Ortigas CBD to and fro Fort CBD). I guess GLX should be around same figure, and better for MT and if used in highways.

**niky** · April 1st, 2013 10:45 PM

135 horse, right? I think the 175 horse ones are a bit thirstier, but you can coax similar economy out of them if you stay out of the boost.

**ano727** · April 1st, 2013 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by niky

135 horse, right? I think the 175 horse ones are a bit thirstier, but you can coax similar economy out of them if you stay out of the boost.

I thought GLX uses the pre-VGT engine, hence same as the older 135hp GLS?
And 175hp for VGT ones.

**vinj** · April 2nd, 2013 09:14 AM

If you've been happy with the CR-V ever since then don't break the line of succession. :D

**Walter** · April 2nd, 2013 09:23 AM

CR-V is more comfortable and easier to drive.

**glntVR** · April 2nd, 2013 10:10 AM

I suggest you test drive both cars. The Montero feels truckish and heavy to drive. The CR-V on the other hand is very car like, and since you've owned the previous generations, you probably are very familiar with how the CR-V drives already, the latest one should drive a better than the older gens.