BMW X5 2003 vs Chevrolet Captiva 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 218 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 500 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
BMW X5 is more dynamic to drive. BMW X5 engine produces 68 HP more power than Chevrolet Captiva, whereas torque is 180 NM more than Chevrolet Captiva. Thanks to more power BMW X5 reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.4 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.5 l/100km | 8.7 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Captiva is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW X5 consumes 2.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW X5 could require 330 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW X5 consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 93 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 900 km in combined cycle | |
| 1160 km on highway | 1040 km on highway | ||
| 880 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW X5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Ground clearance: | 180 mm (7.1 inches) | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Chevrolet Captiva 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. Note, however, that this Chevrolet Captiva version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from six 4x4 versions of Chevrolet Captiva 2006 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
| BMW X5 2003 3.0 engine: The BMW M57 engine is regarded as one of the best German-built power units. Its inline-six layout is praised for reliability, and cars equipped with this engine are often more desirable on the used market. Despite delivering ... More about BMW X5 2003 3.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.72 m | 1.72 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. BMW X5 is 3 cm longer than the Chevrolet Captiva, 2 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Seats: | 5 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 465 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 465 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1550 litres | 930 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in BMW X5 (by 620 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 12.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW X5 is 0.1 metres less than that of the Chevrolet Captiva. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`695 | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| BMW X5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Captiva has serious deffects in 65 percent more cases than BMW X5, so BMW X5 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5400 | 4400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW X5 has
|
Chevrolet Captiva has
| |