2026 Honda CR-V Sport AWD vs 2026 Nissan Rogue SV AWD: Canadian Fuel Costs and Daily Features

A Canadian compact SUV does not need a hybrid badge to deserve a careful fuel-cost comparison. The 2026 Honda CR-V Sport AWD and 2026 Nissan Rogue SV AWD are both gas-powered, but their equipment and official consumption figures point in different directions. This comparison uses Canadian specifications, not an invented back-to-back road test.

Compare gas Sport with SV—not the flagship versions

Honda’s gas Sport uses a 190-hp, 179-lb-ft 1.5-litre turbo engine and CVT. It includes AWD, fabric upholstery, heated front seats, a power tailgate, moonroof and 9-inch touchscreen with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. Honda Canada specifications.

Rogue SV has a 201-hp, 225-lb-ft 1.5-litre turbo three-cylinder, CVT and AWD. Canadian SV equipment includes a panoramic roof, power liftgate, 18-inch wheels and an 8-inch touchscreen with wired smartphone integration. Cloth is standard; optional upholstery should be checked on the actual vehicle. The Platinum’s larger Google-enabled screen is not standard SV equipment. Nissan Canada 2026 press kit and trim specifications.

A panoramic roof or wireless phone connection?

These are small differences that you may notice more often than the output figures. If passengers enjoy an open-looking cabin, try the Rogue with its roof shade open and closed. If your phone is your navigation system on every trip, test the Honda’s wireless connection and the Nissan’s cable placement. Neither a larger opening nor a wireless connection makes the whole vehicle better; the useful question is which inconvenience you would otherwise live with every day.

The Rogue has the lower official fuel rating

The CR-V gas AWD is rated at 9.1 city, 7.6 highway and 8.4 combined L/100 km. The regular Rogue AWD rating is 8.3 city, 6.8 highway and 7.6 combined; do not substitute the differently equipped Rock Creek’s figures. Honda ratings; NRCan 2026 Fuel Consumption Guide.

The combined gap is 0.8 L/100 km: about 160 litres over 20,000 km. Using an illustrative $1.60 per litre—not a live pump price—that is $256 per year. Both route-specific ratings favour the Nissan here, but your winter temperatures, traffic, loading and driving style can change actual results. A fuel saving is one ownership-cost input, not proof that a higher purchase price will pay for itself.

More torque does not settle the road test

The Nissan’s higher published torque gives you a sensible reason to test its response with passengers aboard. It does not establish acceleration, refinement or towing superiority. Drive the same hill and highway merge in both, listen to sustained engine noise, and check whether the transmission response suits you. Do not infer long-term reliability simply from cylinder count, turbocharging or a transmission label.

For family use, install your own child seats and check front-seat space with them fitted. Load the items you actually carry rather than selecting a winner from cargo numbers measured under different conditions. Include winter tires and insurance in the budget; AWD is not a replacement for tires suited to Canadian winter conditions.

The buying decision

The Rogue SV AWD is the stronger specification-based fit if its panoramic roof and lower official fuel consumption matter most. The CR-V Sport AWD remains worth choosing if its cabin layout, wireless phone use and your actual test drive suit you better. Obtain equivalent, itemized out-the-door quotes before treating either as the cheaper vehicle. This comparison does not claim a resale or reliability winner.

Use our vehicle ownership budget worksheet to test the CR-V and Rogue fuel-cost difference at your own distance and pump-price range, then include maintenance and seasonal tire expenses before choosing a payment target.