Chevrolet Orlando 2011 vs Chevrolet Captiva 2006
| 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: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 163 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 360 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 12.2 seconds | |
|
Chevrolet Orlando is more dynamic to drive. Chevrolet Orlando engine produces 13 HP more power than Chevrolet Captiva, whereas torque is 40 NM more than Chevrolet Captiva. Thanks to more power Chevrolet Orlando reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 8.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Orlando is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Orlando consumes 2.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva, which means that by driving the Chevrolet Orlando over 15,000 km in a year you can save 405 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Orlando consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1060 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 1300 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Chevrolet Orlando gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 530'000 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 | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Chevrolet Cruze | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Antara, Chevrolet Epica, Chevrolet Cruze | |
| 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. | |||
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, 3 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Orlando is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 458 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 458 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 465 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
458 litres | 930 litres | |
| In 7-seat version Chevrolet Captiva has more luggage space (by 7 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chevrolet Captiva (by 472 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 11.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Orlando is 0.2 metres less than that of the Chevrolet Captiva. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`287 | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 5000 | 4400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Orlando has
|
Chevrolet Captiva has
| |