Honda FR-V

Honda FR-V specs: which version to buy

There is no second generation to “wait for.” Every Honda FR-V here is the same Compact Van window: 2005-01-01–2009-11-30. The choice is only among 1.7 AT, 1.7 MT, 1.8 MT, 1.8 AT, 2.0 AT, 2.0 MT, and 2.2 MT.

There is no second generation to “wait for.” Every Honda FR-V here is the same Compact Van window: 2005-01-01–2009-11-30. The choice is only among 1.7 AT, 1.7 MT, 1.8 MT, 1.8 AT, 2.0 AT, 2.0 MT, and 2.2 MT.

Arithmetic on the given numbers:

• Power span: 125 hp (1.7 AT, 1.7 MT) to 155 hp (2.0 AT, 2.0 MT) — +30 hp (+24%).
• Torque span: 154 Nm (both 1.7s) to 340 Nm (2.2 MT) — +186 Nm (+121%).
• 0–100 km/h: 10.1 s (2.2 MT) to 12.5 s (1.8 AT) — 2.4 s.
• Combined consumption: 5.3 L/100 km (2.2 MT) to 8.9 L/100 km (2.0 MT) — 3.6 L/100 km.
• Kerb weight: 1395 kg (1.7 and 1.8) to 1584 kg (2.2 MT) — +189 kg.
• Gross weight: 1890 kg to 2130 kg — +240 kg.

If the extra displacement does not show up in 0–100, top speed, or combined fuel, it is called out below with the version names exactly as in the data.

Generations: one generation, seven versions

1 generation (2005-01-01–2009-11-30), Compact Van, 7 versions. Restyling is not listed as a separate generation in the data.

What does not change between versions: FWD; front, transverse engine; independent, spring front and rear; ventilated disc front brakes; Disc rear brakes; 150 mm ground clearance; 58 L tank. Wheel sizes: not measured. CO2: not measured. Eco class: not measured.

What does change: engine size (1668 / 1798 / 1998 / 2204 cm³), fuel (Gasoline vs Diesel), boost (No vs Turbo), gearbox (Automatic vs Manual, 5 vs 6 speeds), power, torque, 0–100, top speed, consumption, and kerb/gross mass.

Engines and specs (all 7 versions)

2.2 MT is 140 hp / 103 kW at 4000 rpm, 340 Nm at 2000 rpm, Diesel, Turbo, Manual 6, FWD.

Specific output (hp per litre of the given displacement):

• 1.7 AT / 1.7 MT: 125 ÷ 1.668 ≈ 75.0 hp/L
• 1.8 MT / 1.8 AT: 140 ÷ 1.798 ≈ 77.9 hp/L
• 2.0 AT / 2.0 MT: 155 ÷ 1.998 ≈ 77.6 hp/L
• 2.2 MT: 140 ÷ 2.204 ≈ 63.5 hp/L

The 1.8 Gasoline engines are the densest in horsepower per litre. 2.2 MT is the least dense in hp/L because the Diesel is specified for torque (340 Nm), not peak horsepower.

Torque per litre:

• 1.7: 154 ÷ 1.668 ≈ 92.3 Nm/L
• 1.8: 173 ÷ 1.798 ≈ 96.2 Nm/L
• 2.0: 190 ÷ 1.998 ≈ 95.1 Nm/L
• 2.2 MT: 340 ÷ 2.204 ≈ 154.3 Nm/L — about 1.67× the 1.7 figure.

Compression ratio (given): 1.7 9.9; 1.8 10.5; 2.0 9.8; 2.2 MT 16.7. Bore × stroke: 1.7 75 × 94.4; 1.8 81 × 87.3; 2.0 86 × 86; 2.2 85 × 97.1. Gasoline versions: Distributed injection (multi-point), fuel 95. 2.2 MT fuel system: not measured; fuel Diesel.

Performance and economy: 0–100, top speed, mpg-style consumption

0–100 km/h (measured in the data):

• 2.2 MT: 10.1 s (fastest)
• 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT: both 10.5 s (gearbox does not change the given 0–100)
• 1.8 MT: 10.6 s (only 0.5 s slower than 2.2 MT, 0.1 s slower than the 2.0 pair)
• 1.7 AT and 1.7 MT: both 12.3 s
• 1.8 AT: 12.5 s (slowest — 1.9 s slower than 1.8 MT with the same 140 hp / 173 Nm)

So the Automatic vs Manual split is not the same on every engine: on 1.7 the 0–100 is identical (12.3 s); on 2.0 it is identical (10.5 s); on 1.8 the Automatic costs 1.9 s.

Top speed:

• 2.0 AT / 2.0 MT: 195 km/h
• 1.8 MT / 1.8 AT / 2.2 MT: 190 km/h
• 1.7 AT / 1.7 MT: 182 km/h

2.2 MT matches the 1.8 pair on top speed (190) despite 167 Nm more torque; the 2.0 pair is +5 km/h over those three and +13 km/h over the 1.7 pair.

Fuel consumption (L/100 km) — city / highway / combined:

2.2 MT uses 2.2 L/100 km less combined than 1.7 AT / 1.7 MT / 1.8 MT (7.5 − 5.3). Versus 2.0 MT the gap is 3.6 L/100 km (8.9 − 5.3).

1.8 MT matches the 1.7 combined figure (7.5) while adding 15 hp and 19 Nm. 1.8 AT is only +0.1 combined vs 1.8 MT, but +1.2 in the city (10.6 vs 9.4).

The 2.0 pair is the thirstiest Gasoline: 2.0 MT combined 8.9 is +1.4 vs 1.8 MT; 2.0 AT combined 8.4 is 0.5 lower than 2.0 MT even though both 0–100 at 10.5 s. City is the reverse: 2.0 MT 11.7 vs 2.0 AT 11. Highway: 2.0 AT 8.9 vs 2.0 MT 7.3 — the Automatic 2.0 is the highest highway figure in the table.

CO2: not measured on all seven. Eco class: not measured on all seven.

Implied combined range on the 58 L tank (58 ÷ combined × 100): 2.2 MT ≈ 1094 km; 1.7 / 1.8 MT ≈ 773 km; 1.8 AT ≈ 763 km; 2.0 AT ≈ 690 km; 2.0 MT ≈ 652 km. That is arithmetic on given tank and combined figures, not a separate measurement.

Dimensions and weight

Wheel sizes: not measured on every version. Ground clearance: 150 mm on every version. Tank: 58 L on every version.

2.0 AT / 2.0 MT have the lowest mass per horsepower (9.48 kg/hp). 2.2 MT has the highest (11.31 kg/hp) because kerb mass is +189 kg vs the 1.7/1.8 group while peak power stays 140 hp — the same hp as 1.8 MT, not the 2.0’s 155.

Payload is almost the same on Gasoline (495 vs 500 kg). 2.2 MT adds 46 kg of payload vs the 1.7/1.8 group (546 − 495) and 46 kg vs the 2.0 pair (546 − 500). Gross 2130 kg is +240 kg vs 1890.

Which version to choose

If combined fuel is the ranking rule: buy 2.2 MT. Combined 5.3 is the lowest; city 6.7 and highway 4.4 are the lowest; 0–100 10.1 s is the shortest; torque 340 Nm at 2000 rpm is more than 1.79× the 2.0’s 190 Nm. Cost of that choice in the data: heaviest kerb (1584 kg), heaviest gross (2130 kg), only Manual 6, Diesel + Turbo, specific output 63.5 hp/L, top speed 190 not 195. Fuel system: not measured.

If 0–100 must match the Diesel without Diesel: 2.0 AT or 2.0 MT at 10.5 s — 0.4 s behind 2.2 MT. You gain +15 hp vs 2.2 MT (155 vs 140) and +5 km/h top speed (195). You lose 150 Nm (190 vs 340) and pay +3.1 combined vs Diesel on 2.0 AT (8.4 − 5.3) or +3.6 on 2.0 MT (8.9 − 5.3). Between the two 2.0 names, 0–100 and top speed are identical; pick 2.0 AT if combined 8.4 beats 8.9, or 2.0 MT if highway 7.3 beats 8.9. Kerb 1470 kg is +75 kg vs 1.7/1.8 and −114 kg vs 2.2 MT.

If you want 140 hp without the 2.2’s mass: 1.8 MT. Same 140 hp as 2.2 MT, kerb 1395 vs 1584 (−189 kg), kg/hp 9.96 vs 11.31, 0–100 10.6 vs 10.1 (+0.5 s), combined 7.5 vs 5.3 (+2.2 L/100 km), torque 173 vs 340. Versus 1.7 MT: +15 hp, +19 Nm, −1.7 s (10.6 vs 12.3), same combined 7.5, same 1395/1890 kg, Manual 6 vs Manual 5. That is the cleanest “step up” inside Gasoline.

Do not buy 1.8 AT if 0–100 is the reason you left 1.7. 1.8 AT is 12.5 s — 0.2 s slower than 1.7 AT / 1.7 MT (12.3 s) despite +15 hp. Combined is almost the same (7.6 vs 7.5). What 1.8 AT still buys: 190 km/h vs 182, Automatic 6 vs Automatic 5 on 1.7 AT, 173 Nm vs 154. If you need Automatic and the 1.8 peak, accept that this Automatic is the slowest 0–100 in the whole model.

1.7 AT vs 1.7 MT: identical 125 hp, 154 Nm, 1668 cm³, 12.3 s, 182 km/h, 9.3 / 6.5 / 7.5, 1395 / 1890 kg. The only listed mechanical difference is Automatic 5 vs Manual 5. There is no measured economy or acceleration bonus for either gearbox on this engine.

2.0 vs 1.8 on Automatic: 2.0 AT (155 hp, 10.5 s, 195 km/h, combined 8.4, kerb 1470) versus 1.8 AT (140 hp, 12.5 s, 190 km/h, combined 7.6, kerb 1395). Extra 15 hp and 2.0 s quicker 0–100 for +0.8 combined and +75 kg. If Automatic is required and 0–100 matters, 2.0 AT is the Automatic that actually improves on 1.7 AT; 1.8 AT does not.

2.0 vs 1.8 on Manual: 2.0 MT 10.5 s / 195 km/h / combined 8.9 vs 1.8 MT 10.6 s / 190 km/h / 7.5. The 0–100 gap is 0.1 s. Combined penalty is +1.4 L/100 km. 1.8 MT is the Manual Gasoline that is within 0.1 s of the 2.0 Manual at 1.4 L/100 km less combined.

Short ranking by job (numbers only):

1. Lowest combined / highest torque / shortest 0–100: 2.2 MT (5.3 / 340 Nm / 10.1 s). 2. Lightest Gasoline that is within 0.5 s of that 0–100: 1.8 MT (1395 kg, 10.6 s, 7.5 combined). 3. Highest hp and top speed: 2.0 AT or 2.0 MT (155 hp, 195 km/h, 10.5 s). 4. Automatic that improves 0–100 vs 1.7: 2.0 AT (10.5 vs 12.3), not 1.8 AT (12.5). 5. Lowest power, identical MT/AT performance: 1.7 AT or 1.7 MT (125 hp, 12.3 s, 7.5 combined).

Wheels, CO2, and eco class remain not measured for every name above; they cannot break a tie.