Chevrolet Captiva 2006 vs Honda CR-V 2007
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.4 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: | 136 HP | 166 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Honda CR-V is a more dynamic driving. Chevrolet Captiva engine produces 30 HP less power than Honda CR-V, the torque is the same for both cars. Due to the lower power, Chevrolet Captiva reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.3 | 9.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.3 l/100km | 10.6 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Chevrolet Captiva consumes 0.2 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 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Chevrolet Captiva consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 610 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 780 km on highway | ||
| 570 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: | 560'000 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 | 15 years | |
| 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 | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.72 m | 1.68 m | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva is larger. Chevrolet Captiva is 12 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 3 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Captiva is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 465 litres | 556 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 465 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 465 litres | 556 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
930 litres | 955 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Honda CR-V has more luggage space (by 91 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Honda CR-V (by 25 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.1 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 0.3 metres more than that of the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`395 | 2`160 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Honda CR-V has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Captiva has serious deffects in 165 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 5600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |