Chevrolet Orlando 2013 vs Honda CR-V 2013
| Body: | Minivan / MPV | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.6 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 200 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Chevrolet Orlando is more dynamic to drive. Chevrolet Orlando engine produces 20 HP more power than Honda CR-V, but torque is 100 NM less than Honda CR-V. Thanks to more power Chevrolet Orlando reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 | 4.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.9 l/100km | 5.7 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Orlando consumes 1.7 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 Orlando could require 255 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Orlando consumes 3.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1030 km in combined cycle | 1280 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 1340 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 1010 km with real consumption | ||
| Honda CR-V gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.65 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.63 m | 1.69 m | |
|
Chevrolet Orlando is larger, but lower. Chevrolet Orlando is 8 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 6 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Orlando is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 458 litres | 589 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 458 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 589 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
466 litres | 1669 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Honda CR-V (by 1203 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Orlando is 0.5 metres less than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Chevrolet Orlando can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`179 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Chevrolet Orlando is better rated in child safety tests. The Chevrolet Orlando scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 6000 | 12 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Orlando has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |