Chevrolet Captiva 2011 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 167 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 232 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is a more dynamic driving. Chevrolet Captiva engine produces 3 HP less power than Mitsubishi Outlander, whereas torque is 2 NM less than Mitsubishi Outlander. Due to the lower power, Chevrolet Captiva reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.3 | 8.2 | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Chevrolet Captiva consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chevrolet Captiva could require 165 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi Outlander 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) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 19 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Antara, Chevrolet Malibu | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Peugeot 4007, Citroen C-Crosser | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Outlander 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: | 4.67 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.73 m | 1.68 m | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva is larger. Chevrolet Captiva and Mitsubishi Outlander are practically the same length. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 97 litres | 774 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 97 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 477 litres | 774 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1577 litres | 1691 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Mitsubishi Outlander has more luggage space (by 297 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 114 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.3 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 1.7 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means Chevrolet Captiva can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`329 | 2`290 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Captiva has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Outlander, so Mitsubishi Outlander quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5600 | 5200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |