Mitsubishi Outlander 2006 vs Chevrolet Captiva 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 160 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 213 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 24 HP more power than Chevrolet Captiva, but torque is 7 NM less than Chevrolet Captiva. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 | 9.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.2 l/100km | 11.3 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Outlander could require 120 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 580 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 520 km with real consumption | 570 km with real consumption | ||
| Chevrolet Captiva gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 560'000 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 Chevrolet Captiva engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 21 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Galant, Mitsubishi Grandis, Mitsubishi Eclipse | 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. Mitsubishi Outlander might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| 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: | 4.54 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.72 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is smaller. Mitsubishi Outlander is 10 cm shorter than the Chevrolet Captiva, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 10 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 402 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 402 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1691 litres | 930 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Chevrolet Captiva has more luggage space (by 63 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 761 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 12.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 0.7 metres less than that of the Chevrolet Captiva, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`300 | 2`395 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Captiva has serious deffects in 65 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Outlander, so Mitsubishi Outlander quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 4400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Chevrolet Captiva has
| |