Opel Crossland 2017 vs Renault Kadjar 2015
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 81 HP | 130 HP | |
| Torque: | 118 NM | 205 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14 seconds | 10.1 seconds | |
|
Renault Kadjar is a more dynamic driving. Opel Crossland engine produces 49 HP less power than Renault Kadjar, whereas torque is 87 NM less than Renault Kadjar. Due to the lower power, Opel Crossland reaches 100 km/h speed 3.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Opel Crossland is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Crossland consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Kadjar, which means that by driving the Opel Crossland over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Crossland consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Kadjar. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 1220 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 780 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Kadjar gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Peugeot 308, Citroen C3, Citroen C1, Peugeot 2008 | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Renault Scenic, Renault Megane, Dacia Duster, Dacia Dokker | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Opel Crossland might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.21 m | 4.45 m | |
| Width: | 1.83 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.61 m | 1.61 m | |
|
Opel Crossland is smaller. Opel Crossland is 24 cm shorter than the Renault Kadjar, 1 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | 472 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1255 litres | 1478 litres | |
|
Renault Kadjar has more luggage space. Opel Crossland has 62 litres less trunk space than the Renault Kadjar. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Kadjar (by 223 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Crossland is 0.5 metres more than that of the Renault Kadjar, which means Opel Crossland can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`690 | 1`853 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Renault Kadjar has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Crossland has serious deffects in 80 percent more cases than Renault Kadjar, so Renault Kadjar quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | no data | 11 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Crossland has
|
Renault Kadjar has
| |