Chevrolet Captiva 2006 vs Volvo XC60 2008
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 3.0 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 | 285 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 7.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. Chevrolet Captiva engine produces 135 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 80 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, Chevrolet Captiva reaches 100 km/h speed 4.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 11.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.1 l/100km | 12.1 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Captiva is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Captiva consumes 3.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60, which means that by driving the Chevrolet Captiva over 15,000 km in a year you can save 480 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Captiva consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 580 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 780 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 570 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) | |
| Ground clearance: | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | 230 mm (9.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Volvo XC60 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 | 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 | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Antara, Chevrolet Epica, Chevrolet Cruze | Used also on Volvo S80 | |
| 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 | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.72 m | 1.71 m | |
| Chevrolet Captiva is 1 cm longer than the Volvo XC60, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Chevrolet Captiva is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 465 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 465 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 465 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
930 litres | 1455 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Volvo XC60 has more luggage space (by 30 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo XC60 (by 525 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.5 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 0.4 metres less than that of the Volvo XC60, which means Chevrolet Captiva can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`505 | 2`440 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Captiva has serious deffects in 140 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 9000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |