Opel Crossland 2018 vs Renault Kadjar 2015
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 1.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 102 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 260 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.7 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
| Opel Crossland engine produces 8 HP less power than Renault Kadjar, whereas torque is 10 NM less than Renault Kadjar. Despite less power, Opel Crossland reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.0 | 3.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 5.5 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Kadjar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Crossland consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Kadjar, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Crossland could require 30 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Crossland consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Kadjar. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1120 km in combined cycle | 1570 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 1660 km on highway | ||
| 770 km with real consumption | 1090 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Kadjar gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Opel Corsa, Peugeot 308, Opel Combo, Peugeot 2008, Citroen Berlingo | Installed on at least 22 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster, Nissan Juke | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Kadjar might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Opel Crossland 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. | |||
| Renault Kadjar 2015 1.5 engine: The engine has many modifications, is sufficiently common and spare parts are available. The fuel consumption/power ratio is good. The fuel injection system can be a problem and the timing belt change interval ... More about Renault Kadjar 2015 1.5 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.21 m | 4.45 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 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, 7 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`820 | 1`916 | |
| 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: |
|
Renault Kadjar has
| |