Chevrolet Orlando 2011 vs Opel Combo 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.6 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 | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 360 NM | 290 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 13.4 seconds | |
|
Chevrolet Orlando is more dynamic to drive. Chevrolet Orlando engine produces 58 HP more power than Opel Combo, whereas torque is 70 NM more than Opel Combo. Thanks to more power Chevrolet Orlando reaches 100 km/h speed 3.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 5.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 6.7 l/100km | |
|
The Opel Combo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Orlando consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Opel Combo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chevrolet Orlando could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Orlando consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Opel Combo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1060 km in combined cycle | 1150 km in combined cycle | |
| 1300 km on highway | 1270 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 890 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 370'000 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: | 5 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Chevrolet Cruze | Used also on Fiat Bravo | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Opel Combo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.65 m | 4.39 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.63 m | 1.85 m | |
|
Chevrolet Orlando is larger, but lower. Chevrolet Orlando is 26 cm longer than the Opel Combo, 4 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Orlando is 21 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 458 litres | 790 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 458 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 790 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
458 litres | 3200 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Opel Combo (by 2742 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Orlando is 0.1 metres more than that of the Opel Combo. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`287 | 2`010 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 5000 | 4600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Orlando has
|
Opel Combo has
| |