Kia Optima 2000 vs Chevrolet Captiva 2006
| Body: | Sedan | 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 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 180 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
| Kia Optima and Chevrolet Captiva have the same engine power, but Kia Optima torque is 40 NM less than Chevrolet Captiva. Kia Optima reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.7 | 9.3 | |
| Kia Optima consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Kia Optima could require 60 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 560'000 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: | 13 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Kia Sportage, Kia Carens, Kia Magentis, Kia Clarus | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Kia Optima might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.73 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.72 m | |
| Kia Optima is 9 cm longer than the Chevrolet Captiva, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Kia Optima is 31 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 479 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 479 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 930 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Kia Optima has more luggage space (by 14 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 12.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Kia Optima is 1.7 metres less than that of the Chevrolet Captiva, which means Kia Optima can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`985 | 2`405 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 4400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Kia Optima has
|
Chevrolet Captiva has
| |