Chevrolet Captiva 2013 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 184 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
| Chevrolet Captiva engine produces 34 HP more power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Mazda CX-5. Despite the higher power, Chevrolet Captiva reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 4.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Captiva consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chevrolet Captiva could require 270 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Captiva consumes 2.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 1210 km in combined cycle | |
| 1160 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda CX-5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
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: | 16 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Opel Antara | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda CX-7 | |
| 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: | 4.67 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva is larger. Chevrolet Captiva is 13 cm longer than the Mazda CX-5, width is practically the same , while the height of Chevrolet Captiva is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 97 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 97 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 477 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1577 litres | 1620 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Mazda CX-5 has more luggage space (by 28 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-5 (by 43 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.3 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 1.1 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-5, which means Chevrolet Captiva can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`505 kg | 2`035 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`878 kg | 1`445 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 627 kg | 590 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Mazda CX-5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Captiva has serious deffects in 140 percent more cases than Mazda CX-5, so Mazda CX-5 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5600 | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |