Mazda CX-7 2009 vs Chevrolet Captiva 2011
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 260 HP | 167 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-7 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda CX-7 engine produces 93 HP more power than Chevrolet Captiva, whereas torque is 150 NM more than Chevrolet Captiva. Thanks to more power Mazda CX-7 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.4 | 9.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.6 l/100km | 11.6 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Captiva is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda CX-7 consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda CX-7 could require 165 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 69 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 850 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 420'000 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 | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Antara, Chevrolet Malibu | |
| 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. | |||
| Mazda CX-7 2009 2.3 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its capacity is quite limited. The engine also requires high quality fuel and tends to use more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.73 m | |
|
Mazda CX-7 is larger, but lower. Mazda CX-7 is 3 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 | 97 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 97 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 455 litres | 477 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
774 litres | 1577 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Chevrolet Captiva has more luggage space (by 22 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chevrolet Captiva (by 803 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 12.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-7 is 0.9 metres less than that of the Chevrolet Captiva, which means Mazda CX-7 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`304 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Chevrolet Captiva scores higher in safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 6200 | 6600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-7 has
|
Chevrolet Captiva has
| |