Chevrolet Captiva 2006 vs Citroen C-Crosser 2007
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 156 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
| Chevrolet Captiva engine produces 6 HP less power than Citroen C-Crosser, whereas torque is 60 NM less than Citroen C-Crosser. Despite less power, Chevrolet Captiva reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.1 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen C-Crosser is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Captiva consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C-Crosser, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chevrolet Captiva could require 225 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Captiva consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C-Crosser. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen C-Crosser 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) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | 174 mm (6.9 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 | 480'000 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 | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Antara, Chevrolet Epica, Chevrolet Cruze | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi Outlander, Peugeot 4007 | |
| 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 | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.72 m | 1.72 m | |
| Chevrolet Captiva is 1 cm shorter than the Citroen C-Crosser, 4 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 465 litres | 184 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 465 litres | 184 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 465 litres | 441 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
930 litres | 1686 litres | |
| In 7-seat version Chevrolet Captiva has more luggage space (by 281 litres). In 5-seat version Chevrolet Captiva has more luggage space (by 24 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Citroen C-Crosser (by 756 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.5 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 0.5 metres less than that of the Citroen C-Crosser, which means Chevrolet Captiva can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`505 | 2`410 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 5600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
Citroen C-Crosser has
| |