Chevrolet Captiva 2013 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 167 HP | 147 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 195 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva is more dynamic to drive. Chevrolet Captiva engine produces 20 HP more power than Mitsubishi Outlander, whereas torque is 35 NM more than Mitsubishi Outlander. Thanks to more power Chevrolet Captiva reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.3 | 7.5 | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Chevrolet Captiva consumes 1.8 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 270 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi Outlander 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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 19 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Antara, Chevrolet Malibu | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi ASX, Peugeot 4008 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Outlander might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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 | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.68 m | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva is larger. Chevrolet Captiva is 2 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Outlander, 5 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Captiva is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 477 litres | 591 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1598 litres | no data | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Chevrolet Captiva has 114 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Outlander. This could mean that the Chevrolet Captiva uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| 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): | 2`329 | 1`985 | |
| 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 (€): | 8000 | 8200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |