Honda Crosstour

Honda Crosstour: Which Version to Buy and Why

The Honda Crosstour choice comes down to three distinct priorities. The 2013–2016 2.4 AT is the economy-focused FWD version, combining 194 hp with the lowest measured combined consumption of 8.4 L/100 km. The 2013–2016 3.5 AT AWD is the performance choice: its 281 hp, 342 Nm and 8.1-second 0–100 km/h time are the strongest measured combination in the catalogue.

The Honda Crosstour choice comes down to three distinct priorities. The 2013–2016 2.4 AT is the economy-focused FWD version, combining 194 hp with the lowest measured combined consumption of 8.4 L/100 km. The 2013–2016 3.5 AT AWD is the performance choice: its 281 hp, 342 Nm and 8.1-second 0–100 km/h time are the strongest measured combination in the catalogue. Buyers considering an earlier Crosstour get a 2009–2013 3.5 AT AWD with 271 or 275 hp, while the later 3.5 AT FWD offers the same 281 hp as the later AWD version with a lower 1,777 kg kerb weight.

Honda Crosstour generations and versions

The Honda Crosstour has one generation represented in two stages rather than two separate generations. The original 1 generation ran from November 2009 to October 2013 as an SUV 5-doors and includes two 3.5 AT versions. Both use AWD and a 5-speed Automatic transmission, but one produces 275 hp and 339 Nm while the other produces 271 hp and 254 Nm.

The 1 generation, restyling ran from April 2013 to April 2016, also as an SUV 5-doors. It expands the choice to three versions: a 194 hp 2.4 AT with FWD, a 281 hp 3.5 AT with AWD, and another 281 hp 3.5 AT with FWD. This stage introduces a smaller engine and adds 6-speed Automatic transmission to both 3.5 AT versions, while the 2.4 AT retains a 5-speed Automatic.

Honda Crosstour engine specs and horsepower

All five engines are Gasoline units with front, transverse installation and Direct injection (direct). Each has 4 valves per cylinder.

Calculated from the catalogue figures, the 2.4 AT produces about 82.4 hp per litre. The 275 hp and 271 hp versions of the earlier 3.5 AT deliver about 79.2 and 78.1 hp per litre respectively. Both later 281 hp 3.5 AT versions reach about 81.0 hp per litre. The 2.4 AT therefore has the highest specific output, although its total output is 87 hp below either later 3.5 AT.

For V6 buyers, the later 3.5 AT AWD adds 6 hp and 3 Nm over the earlier 275 hp 3.5 AT AWD. Its larger advantage lies in the transmission and measured performance: it uses a 6-speed Automatic instead of a 5-speed Automatic and reaches 100 km/h 0.8 seconds sooner.

Honda Crosstour performance and fuel economy

The 2.4 AT is the clear choice when measured fuel consumption matters most. Against the later 3.5 AT AWD, it uses 2.4 L/100 km less in the city, 0.8 L/100 km less on the highway and 1.4 L/100 km less combined. The trade-off is acceleration: its 11.1-second result is 3 seconds slower.

Among versions with complete figures, the later 3.5 AT AWD offers the best performance. Compared with the earlier 275 hp 3.5 AT AWD, it is 0.8 seconds quicker to 100 km/h and 4 km/h faster at the top end. It also reduces measured consumption by 0.3 L/100 km in the city, 3.2 L/100 km on the highway and 1.4 L/100 km combined.

The later FWD and AWD 3.5 AT versions share 281 hp and the same 8.1-second acceleration figure, but their listed torque differs substantially: 252 Nm for FWD and 342 Nm for AWD. The FWD version consumes 2.6 L/100 km less in the city but 0.6 L/100 km more on the highway and 0.4 L/100 km more combined. Its top speed is not measured, so it cannot be compared on that parameter.

Honda Crosstour weight, capacity and dimensions

The later 2.4 AT is the lightest version with measured kerb weight. It is 167 kg lighter than the later 3.5 AT AWD and 79 kg lighter than the later 3.5 AT FWD. The FWD 3.5 AT is itself 88 kg lighter than the equivalent-power AWD version.

Calculated from kerb weight and horsepower, the later 3.5 AT FWD has the strongest measured weight-to-power result at about 6.32 kg per hp. The later 3.5 AT AWD follows at about 6.64 kg per hp, the earlier 275 hp 3.5 AT AWD at about 6.68 kg per hp, and the 2.4 AT at about 8.75 kg per hp. Kerb weight is not measured for the earlier 271 hp 3.5 AT, so its result cannot be calculated.

Where both kerb and gross weights are measured, the numerical difference is 472 kg for the 2.4 AT, 455 kg for the later 3.5 AT AWD and 464 kg for the earlier 275 hp 3.5 AT AWD. Gross weight is not measured for the later 3.5 AT FWD or the earlier 271 hp 3.5 AT.

The supplied data does not measure exterior length, width, height or trunk dimensions for any Honda Crosstour version. Ground clearance varies only between 205 and 206 mm, and every version has a 70 L fuel tank.

Honda Crosstour reliability and problems

Reliability, maintenance history, engine-air-filter specifications, engine-oil requirements, engine-mount condition and warning-light causes are not measured in the supplied data. No numerical reliability rating or problem frequency is available, so the versions cannot be ranked honestly on those criteria. A catalogue comparison can establish their differences in engine output, transmission, drive, performance, consumption and weight, but it cannot turn those specifications into a reliability claim.

Which Honda Crosstour version should you buy?

Choose the 2013–2016 2.4 AT if fuel economy has priority over acceleration. Its 8.4 L/100 km combined figure is the lowest measured result, and its 1,698 kg kerb weight is also the lowest measured. It additionally uses 92 fuel. The cost of that efficiency is 194 hp, FWD and an 11.1-second 0–100 km/h time.

Choose the 2013–2016 3.5 AT, 281 hp, AWD if you want the strongest all-round performance supported by complete measurements. It has the highest listed torque at 342 Nm, the highest measured top speed at 194 km/h, AWD and an 8.1-second acceleration time. Its measured combined consumption of 9.8 L/100 km is also 1.4 L/100 km below the earlier 275 hp AWD version.

Choose the 2013–2016 3.5 AT, 281 hp, FWD if lower kerb weight matters more than AWD. It keeps the 281 hp output and 8.1-second acceleration figure while weighing 88 kg less than the later AWD version. However, its torque is listed 90 Nm lower, its combined consumption is 0.4 L/100 km higher, and its top speed and gross weight are not measured.

Choose the 2009–2013 3.5 AT, 275 hp if considering the original version and wanting the most complete set of recorded specifications. It supplies 339 Nm, AWD, a measured 190 km/h top speed, complete consumption data and the only listed wheel sizes. Between the two earlier 3.5 AT versions, it also has 4 hp and 85 Nm more than the 271 hp alternative, while both record 8.9 seconds to 100 km/h.

On specifications alone, the later 3.5 AT AWD is the most convincing performance choice, the later 2.4 AT is the strongest economy choice, and the later 3.5 AT FWD offers the best calculated weight-to-power ratio. Actual reliability and market value remain not measured, so they cannot be used to select a winner from this dataset.