Mitsubishi Outlander 2009 vs Chevrolet Captiva 2011
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 184 HP | |
| Torque: | 232 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 9.6 seconds | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 14 HP less power than Chevrolet Captiva, whereas torque is 168 NM less than Chevrolet Captiva. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.2 l/100km | 9.1 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Captiva is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Outlander could require 240 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 980 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
| Chevrolet Captiva gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 19 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Peugeot 4007, Citroen C-Crosser | Used also on Opel Antara | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Outlander might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Chevrolet Captiva engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.73 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is smaller. Mitsubishi Outlander and Chevrolet Captiva are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 774 litres | 477 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1691 litres | 1577 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has more luggage capacity. Mitsubishi Outlander has 297 litres more trunk space than the Chevrolet Captiva. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 114 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 1.2 metres less than that of the Chevrolet Captiva, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`290 | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Captiva has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Outlander, so Mitsubishi Outlander quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5800 | 6600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Chevrolet Captiva has
| |