Volvo XC60 2013 vs Chevrolet Captiva 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 215 HP | 184 HP | |
| Torque: | 440 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.3 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo XC60 engine produces 31 HP more power than Chevrolet Captiva, whereas torque is 40 NM more than Chevrolet Captiva. Thanks to more power Volvo XC60 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 6.4 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1090 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 1320 km on highway | 1160 km on highway | ||
| 850 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo XC60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 230 mm (9.1 inches) | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Volvo XC60 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 460'000 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 Volvo XC60 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volvo XC70 | Used also on Opel Antara | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Volvo XC60 is 3 cm shorter than the Chevrolet Captiva, 4 cm wider, while the height of Volvo XC60 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 5 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 495 litres | 97 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 97 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 495 litres | 477 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1455 litres | 1577 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Volvo XC60 has more luggage space (by 18 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chevrolet Captiva (by 122 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.7 meters | 12.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC60 is 0.6 metres less than that of the Chevrolet Captiva, which means Volvo XC60 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`270 kg | 2`505 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`834 kg | 1`878 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 436 kg | 627 kg | |
| Volvo XC60 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 44 procentiem less than Chevrolet Captiva. Therefore, Chevrolet Captiva is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Captiva has serious deffects in 175 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 12 600 | 5400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC60 has
|
Chevrolet Captiva has
| |