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: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 130 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 315 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
|
Chevrolet Orlando is a more dynamic driving. Chevrolet Captiva engine produces 6 HP more power than Chevrolet Orlando, but torque is 95 NM less than Chevrolet Orlando. Despite the higher power, Chevrolet Captiva reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.3 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.3 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Orlando is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Captiva consumes 3.3 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 495 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Captiva consumes 2.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Orlando. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 1060 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 1300 km on highway | ||
| 570 km with real consumption | 750 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) | |
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: | 12.1 meters | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 0.8 metres more than that of the Chevrolet Orlando, which means Chevrolet Captiva can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`395 | 2`287 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 6000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
Chevrolet Orlando has
| |