Chevrolet Captiva 2013 vs Subaru Forester 2013
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Chevrolet Captiva is available with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive, while Subaru Forester can be equipped only with four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Chevrolet Captiva also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 2.2 - 3.0 | 2.0 - 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 163 - 249 HP | 147 - 240 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 - 400 NM | 198 - 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 - 11.1 seconds | 7.5 - 11.8 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 - 10.5 | 5.7 - 8.5 | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva petrol engines consumes on average 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than Subaru Forester. On average, Chevrolet Captiva equipped with diesel engines consume 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Subaru Forester. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | 220 mm (8.7 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Subaru Forester 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.60 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.75 m | 1.74 m | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva is larger. Chevrolet Captiva is 7 cm longer than the Subaru Forester, 5 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Captiva is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 477 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1598 litres | 1577 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, 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 Chevrolet Captiva (by 21 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.3 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 1.7 metres more than that of the Subaru Forester, which means Chevrolet Captiva can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | ~ 2`430 kg | ~ 2`055 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 1`813 kg | ~ 1`524 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 617 kg | ~ 531 kg | |
| Chevrolet Captiva load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 14 procentiem more than Subaru Forester. Therefore, Chevrolet Captiva is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Average price (€): | 5800 | 10 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
Subaru Forester has
| |