Honda CR-V 2004 vs Chevrolet Captiva 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 12.2 seconds | |
|
Honda CR-V is more dynamic to drive. Honda CR-V engine produces 10 HP less power than Chevrolet Captiva, but torque is 20 NM more than Chevrolet Captiva. Despite less power, Honda CR-V reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 8.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda CR-V consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva, which means that by driving the Honda CR-V over 15,000 km in a year you can save 300 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda CR-V consumes 2.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 860 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 770 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Honda CR-V gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 530'000 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: | 8 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda Accord, Honda FR-V | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Antara, Chevrolet Epica, Chevrolet Cruze | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Honda CR-V 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: | 4.64 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.72 m | |
| Honda CR-V and Chevrolet Captiva are practically the same length. | |||
| Seats: | 5 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 525 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 525 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
952 litres | 930 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Honda CR-V has more luggage space (by 60 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Honda CR-V (by 22 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda CR-V is 0.9 metres less than that of the Chevrolet Captiva, which means Honda CR-V can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Chevrolet Captiva has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Honda CR-V has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Chevrolet Captiva, so Chevrolet Captiva quality is probably better | ||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 4400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda CR-V has
|
Chevrolet Captiva has
| |