Chevrolet Captiva 2006 vs Honda CR-V 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 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 | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 12 seconds | |
| Chevrolet Captiva and Honda CR-V have the same engine power, but Chevrolet Captiva torque is 130 NM more than Honda CR-V. Chevrolet Captiva reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 9.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.1 l/100km | 10.6 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Captiva is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Captiva consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that by driving the Chevrolet Captiva over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Captiva consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 760 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 540 km with real consumption | ||
| Chevrolet Captiva gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 530'000 km | 420'000 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 | 11 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 Honda Civic, Honda Accord, Honda FR-V, Honda Stream | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Honda CR-V 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: | 4.64 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.72 m | 1.71 m | |
| Chevrolet Captiva and Honda CR-V are practically the same length. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 465 litres | 525 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 465 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 465 litres | 525 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
930 litres | 952 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Honda CR-V has more luggage space (by 60 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Honda CR-V (by 22 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.5 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 1.1 metres more than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Chevrolet Captiva can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`505 | 1`910 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Chevrolet Captiva has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Honda CR-V has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Chevrolet Captiva, so Chevrolet Captiva quality is probably better | ||
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |