Citroen C-Crosser 2007 vs Chevrolet Captiva 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 156 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 12.2 seconds | |
|
Citroen C-Crosser is more dynamic to drive. Citroen C-Crosser engine produces 6 HP more power than Chevrolet Captiva, whereas torque is 60 NM more than Chevrolet Captiva. Thanks to more power Citroen C-Crosser reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 8.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen C-Crosser is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen C-Crosser consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva, which means that by driving the Citroen C-Crosser over 15,000 km in a year you can save 225 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen C-Crosser consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen C-Crosser gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 174 mm (6.9 inches) | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Chevrolet Captiva can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 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: | 6 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi Outlander, Peugeot 4007 | 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: | 1.81 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.72 m | |
| Citroen C-Crosser is 1 cm longer than the Chevrolet Captiva, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Citroen C-Crosser is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 184 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 184 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 441 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1686 litres | 930 litres | |
| In 7-seat version Chevrolet Captiva has more luggage space (by 281 litres). In 5-seat version Chevrolet Captiva has more luggage space (by 24 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Citroen C-Crosser (by 756 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 11.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen C-Crosser is 0.5 metres more than that of the Chevrolet Captiva, which means Citroen C-Crosser can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`410 | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 6200 | 4400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen C-Crosser has
|
Chevrolet Captiva has
| |