Chevrolet Captiva 2013 vs Volvo XC60 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 184 HP | 215 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 8.3 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. Chevrolet Captiva engine produces 31 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, Chevrolet Captiva reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 6.4 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 1090 km in combined cycle | |
| 1160 km on highway | 1320 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 850 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo XC60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
| Ground clearance: | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | 230 mm (9.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Volvo XC60 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 460'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volvo XC60 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Opel Antara | Used also on Volvo XC70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Chevrolet Captiva might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.71 m | |
| Chevrolet Captiva is 3 cm longer than the Volvo XC60, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Chevrolet Captiva is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 97 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 97 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 477 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1577 litres | 1455 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Volvo XC60 has more luggage space (by 18 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chevrolet Captiva (by 122 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.3 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 0.6 metres more than that of the Volvo XC60, which means Chevrolet Captiva can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`505 | 2`270 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Captiva has serious deffects in 175 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8400 | 16 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |