Chevrolet Captiva 2013 vs Honda CR-V 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 | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
| Chevrolet Captiva engine produces 34 HP more power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 50 NM more than Honda CR-V. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 6.7 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Captiva consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chevrolet Captiva could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Captiva consumes 2.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 1030 km in combined cycle | |
| 1160 km on highway | 1130 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 330'000 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: | 15 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Opel Antara | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda Accord | |
| 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 | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.65 m | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva is larger. Chevrolet Captiva is 14 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 3 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Captiva is 10 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 97 litres | 589 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 97 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 477 litres | 589 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1577 litres | 1669 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Honda CR-V has more luggage space (by 112 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Honda CR-V (by 92 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.3 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 0.5 metres more than that of the Honda CR-V, 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): | 2`505 | 2`200 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Honda CR-V has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Captiva has serious deffects in 145 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7600 | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |