Subaru B9 Tribeca 2006 vs Chevrolet Captiva 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Petrol | 3.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 245 HP | 230 HP | |
| Torque: | 297 NM | 297 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 8.8 seconds | |
| Subaru B9 Tribeca engine produces 15 HP more power than Chevrolet Captiva, the torque is the same for both cars. Despite the higher power, Subaru B9 Tribeca reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 12.3 | 11.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.9 l/100km | 13.2 l/100km | |
|
The Subaru B9 Tribeca is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Subaru B9 Tribeca consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Subaru B9 Tribeca could require 120 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Subaru B9 Tribeca consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 520 km in combined cycle | 560 km in combined cycle | |
| 620 km on highway | 740 km on highway | ||
| 530 km with real consumption | 490 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 350'000 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 Subaru B9 Tribeca engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Subaru Outback, Subaru Legacy | 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. Subaru B9 Tribeca 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: | 4.86 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.76 m | |
|
Subaru B9 Tribeca is larger, but lower. Subaru B9 Tribeca is 22 cm longer than the Chevrolet Captiva, 1 cm wider, while the height of Subaru B9 Tribeca is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 450 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 450 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 930 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Chevrolet Captiva has more luggage space (by 15 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru B9 Tribeca is 0.1 metres less than that of the Chevrolet Captiva. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`000 | 2`440 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 4400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru B9 Tribeca has
|
Chevrolet Captiva has
| |