Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the suv segment and utilize the same 5-door suv body style and the 4 x 4 wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific diesel engine choice they offer. The first one has a Honda-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 142hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 141hp engine designed by SSangYong.

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, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? On the other hand, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Korean car offers a considerable difference of 17% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Honda is significantly less fault-prone, all the models observed together. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Honda with an average rating of 4.7, and models under the SSangYong badge with 4.3 out of 5. The same official information place CR-V as average reliability-wise, and Actyon is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the Japanese car rank it on average as 4.8, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.3 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. In any case that's my personal view, built upon all the data available to me. What should decide here though is the way you feel about the two vehicles, and I hope you'll find my guidelines useful in the process. I suggest you spend two more minutes in order to find out which car, based on your needs and budget, would be picked by the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.