Chevrolet Orlando 2011 vs Chevrolet Captiva 2006
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Body: | Minivan / MPV | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Chevrolet Orlando is available only with front wheel drive, while Chevrolet Captiva can be equipped with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive. | |||
| Engines: | 1.4 - 2.0 | 2.0 - 3.2 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 - 163 HP | 127 - 230 HP | |
| Torque: | 176 - 360 NM | 220 - 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 - 11.6 seconds | 8.8 - 12.2 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 - 7.9 | 7.2 - 11.5 | |
|
Chevrolet Orlando petrol engines consumes on average 2.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than Chevrolet Captiva. On average, Chevrolet Orlando equipped with diesel engines consume 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.65 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.63 m | 1.72 m | |
|
Chevrolet Orlando is larger, but lower. Chevrolet Orlando is 1 cm longer than the Chevrolet Captiva, 2 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Orlando is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 458 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1499 litres | 930 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Chevrolet Orlando has 7 litres less trunk space than the Chevrolet Captiva. This could mean that the Chevrolet Orlando uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chevrolet Orlando (by 569 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 12.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Orlando is 0.8 metres less than that of the Chevrolet Captiva, which means Chevrolet Orlando can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`228 | ~ 2`454 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 5400 | 4800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Orlando has
|
Chevrolet Captiva has
| |