Chevrolet Orlando 2011 vs Honda CR-V 2012
| 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 | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 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: | 141 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 176 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.6 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Honda CR-V is a more dynamic driving. Chevrolet Orlando engine produces 9 HP less power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 14 NM less than Honda CR-V. Due to the lower power, Chevrolet Orlando reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.7 l/100km | 9.2 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Orlando is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Orlando consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that by driving the Chevrolet Orlando over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Orlando consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 1080 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| Chevrolet Orlando gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 420'000 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 Orlando engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 18 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Chevrolet Cruze | Used also on Honda Accord | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.65 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.63 m | 1.69 m | |
|
Chevrolet Orlando is larger, but lower. Chevrolet Orlando is 8 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 6 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Orlando is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 458 litres | 589 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 458 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 589 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
458 litres | 1669 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Honda CR-V (by 1211 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Orlando is 0.5 metres less than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Chevrolet Orlando can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`160 | 2`100 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Chevrolet Orlando is better rated in child safety tests. The Chevrolet Orlando scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 6000 | 12 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Orlando has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |