Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. Having both cars powered by diesel engines and utilizing the 5-door suv body style within the same 'SUV' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (rear for the SSangYong and 4 x 4 in the case of the Honda). The first one has a SSangYong-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 141hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 142hp engine designed by Honda.

The fact that the Honda got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, offers a slight advantage, as the 4-star rating is better than none. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. Furthermore, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Korean car offers a considerable difference of 10% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Honda is significantly less fault-prone, all the models observed together. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of SSangYong with an average rating of 4.3, and models under the Honda badge with 4.7 out of 5. The same official information place Actyon as average reliability-wise, and CR-V is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the Korean car rank it on average as 4.3, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.8 out of 5.

Honda is way more agile, reaching 100km/h in 3.8 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 187 kilometers per hour, 24km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the Japanese car, averaging around 6.5 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (43 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 20% difference compared to the Korean car.

Honda appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, the Japanese car offers significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. It all continues in the same direction, with Honda outracing its opponent in any situation possible, making it better choice for boy racers. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Honda. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.