Mazda CX-7 2009 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: | 173 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 12.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-7 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda CX-7 engine produces 23 HP more power than Chevrolet Captiva, whereas torque is 80 NM more than Chevrolet Captiva. Thanks to more power Mazda CX-7 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.5 | 8.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda CX-7 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda CX-7 consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva, which means that by driving the Mazda CX-7 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda CX-7 consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 69 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 1040 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 820 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda CX-7 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 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: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3 | 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. Chevrolet Captiva 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: | 4.70 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.72 m | |
|
Mazda CX-7 is larger, but lower. Mazda CX-7 is 6 cm longer than the Chevrolet Captiva, 2 cm wider, while the height of Mazda CX-7 is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 5 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 455 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 465 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 455 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
774 litres | 930 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Chevrolet Captiva has more luggage space (by 10 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chevrolet Captiva (by 156 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-7 is 0.1 metres less than that of the Chevrolet Captiva. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`430 | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 6400 | 4400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-7 has
|
Chevrolet Captiva has
| |