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: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 315 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Honda CR-V is a more dynamic driving. Chevrolet Orlando engine produces 20 HP less power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 35 NM less than Honda CR-V. Due to the lower power, Chevrolet Orlando reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.5 l/100km | 6.7 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Chevrolet Orlando consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chevrolet Orlando could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Orlando consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1060 km in combined cycle | 1030 km in combined cycle | |
| 1300 km on highway | 1130 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Honda CR-V 2012: Vehicle has automatic four-wheel drive system that sends torque to front wheels under normal conditions. Electronically controlled multi-plate clutch transfers torque to rear axle when wheel slip is detected. The all-wheel drive system constantly interacts with the VSA dynamic stabilization system and electric power steering to provide full vehicle control, good traction and maneuverability in all road conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.65 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.63 m | 1.65 m | |
|
Chevrolet Orlando is larger, but slightly lower. Chevrolet Orlando is 12 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 6 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Orlando is 2 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. | |||
| 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`200 | |
| 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 (€): | 5000 | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Orlando has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |