Chevrolet Captiva 2006 vs BMW X5 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 4.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 320 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 7 seconds | |
|
BMW X5 is a more dynamic driving. Chevrolet Captiva engine produces 170 HP less power than BMW X5, whereas torque is 120 NM less than BMW X5. Due to the lower power, Chevrolet Captiva reaches 100 km/h speed 5.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 13.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.1 l/100km | 13.7 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Captiva is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Captiva consumes 4.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW X5, which means that by driving the Chevrolet Captiva over 15,000 km in a year you can save 645 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Captiva consumes 3.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW X5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 93 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | 187 mm (7.4 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Chevrolet Captiva 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: | 530'000 km | 440'000 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: | 5 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Antara, Chevrolet Epica, Chevrolet Cruze | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 7 sērija, BMW 6 sērija | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW X5 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.72 m | 1.71 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Chevrolet Captiva is 3 cm shorter than the BMW X5, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Chevrolet Captiva is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 465 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 465 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 465 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
930 litres | 1550 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in BMW X5 (by 620 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.5 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 0.5 metres less than that of the BMW X5, which means Chevrolet Captiva can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`505 | 2`700 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| BMW X5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Captiva has serious deffects in 65 percent more cases than BMW X5, so BMW X5 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 5400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
BMW X5 has
| |