Chevrolet Captiva 2013 vs Honda CR-V 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 167 HP | 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva is more dynamic to drive. Chevrolet Captiva engine produces 23 HP less power than Honda CR-V, but torque is 10 NM more than Honda CR-V. Despite less power, Chevrolet Captiva reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.3 | 8.4 | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Chevrolet Captiva consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chevrolet Captiva could require 135 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Antara, Chevrolet Malibu | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Chevrolet Captiva engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.55 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.69 m | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva is larger. Chevrolet Captiva is 12 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 3 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Captiva is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 477 litres | 589 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1598 litres | 1669 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Chevrolet Captiva has 112 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. This could mean that the Chevrolet Captiva uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Honda CR-V (by 71 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.3 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 0.5 metres more than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Chevrolet Captiva can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`304 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Honda CR-V has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Captiva has serious deffects in 145 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8400 | 12 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |