Chevrolet Captiva 2013 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 182 HP | 167 HP | |
| Torque: | 233 NM | 222 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
| Chevrolet Captiva engine produces 15 HP more power than Mitsubishi Outlander, whereas torque is 11 NM more than Mitsubishi Outlander. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.6 | 7.9 | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Chevrolet Captiva consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chevrolet Captiva could require 255 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 72 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | 216 mm (8.5 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mitsubishi Outlander 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 380'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Chevrolet Equinox | 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: | 4.58 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.70 m | 1.68 m | |
| Chevrolet Captiva is 8 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Outlander, 5 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Captiva is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 5 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 477 litres | 292 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 97 litres | 292 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 477 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1598 litres | 1792 litres | |
| In 7-seat version Mitsubishi Outlander has more luggage space (by 195 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 194 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 Mitsubishi Outlander, 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): | no data | 2`210 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Captiva has serious deffects in 95 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Outlander, so Mitsubishi Outlander quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7600 | 9200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |