Chevrolet Captiva 2006 vs Chevrolet Orlando 2011
| Body: | Crossover / SUV | Minivan / MPV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| 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 | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 360 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Chevrolet Orlando is a more dynamic driving. Chevrolet Captiva engine produces 13 HP less power than Chevrolet Orlando, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Chevrolet Orlando. Due to the lower power, Chevrolet Captiva reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.1 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Orlando is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Captiva consumes 2.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Orlando, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chevrolet Captiva could require 405 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Captiva consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Orlando. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 1060 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 1300 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| Chevrolet Orlando gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
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 | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Antara, Chevrolet Epica, Chevrolet Cruze | Used also on Chevrolet Cruze | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Chevrolet Captiva might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.65 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.72 m | 1.63 m | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva is smaller, but higher. Chevrolet Captiva is 1 cm shorter than the Chevrolet Orlando, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Chevrolet Captiva is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 465 litres | 458 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 465 litres | 458 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 465 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
930 litres | 458 litres | |
| In 7-seat version Chevrolet Captiva has more luggage space (by 7 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chevrolet Captiva (by 472 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.5 meters | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 0.2 metres more than that of the Chevrolet Orlando. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`505 | 2`287 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
Chevrolet Orlando has
| |