Chevrolet Captiva 2011 vs Mazda CX-7 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 167 HP | 260 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 8.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-7 is a more dynamic driving. Chevrolet Captiva engine produces 93 HP less power than Mazda CX-7, whereas torque is 150 NM less than Mazda CX-7. Due to the lower power, Chevrolet Captiva reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.3 | 10.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.6 l/100km | 11.6 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Captiva is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Captiva consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-7, which means that by driving the Chevrolet Captiva over 15,000 km in a year you can save 165 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 69 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 660 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 560 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 320'000 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: | 8 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Antara, Chevrolet Malibu | Used also on Mazda 3 | |
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Mazda CX-7 2009 2.3 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its capacity is quite limited. The engine also requires high quality fuel and tends to use more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.73 m | 1.65 m | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva is smaller, but higher. Chevrolet Captiva is 3 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-7, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Chevrolet Captiva is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 97 litres | 455 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 97 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 477 litres | 455 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1577 litres | 774 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Chevrolet Captiva has more luggage space (by 22 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chevrolet Captiva (by 803 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.3 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 0.9 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-7, which means Chevrolet Captiva can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`304 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Chevrolet Captiva scores higher in safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 6600 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
Mazda CX-7 has
| |