BMW X3 E83 2.0 i 150HP manual 4x4 vs Chevrolet Captiva I 2.4 i 16V FWD 141HP manual

BMW X3 E83 2.0 i 150HP manual 4x4

Source: wikipedia.org Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

15 reasons for

BMW X3 E83, model available from 2003 to 2010.
It has 2.0 i 150HP petrol engine produced from 2003 to 2010.
Drive 4x4 has manual, 6 speed gearbox.

13 reasons for

Chevrolet Captiva I, model available from 2006 to 2010.
It has 2.4 i 16V FWD 141HP petrol engine produced from 2006 to 2010.
Drive on the front axle has manual, 5 speed gearbox.

Chevrolet Captiva I 2.4 i 16V FWD 141HP manual
BMW

15 reasons for BMW X3 E83 2.0 i 150KM manual 4x4 in comparison to Chevrolet Captiva I 2.4 i 16V FWD 141HP manual

Reasons for
135

Maximal power

150 > 141 hp
The horsepower of the BMW X3 E83 2.0 i 150HP manual 4x4 is by 6 percent grater in relation to the Chevrolet Captiva I 2.4 i 16V FWD 141HP manual. Because the difference is little it should not affect the car performance extensively.
38

Trunk capacity

479 > 465 l
The boot of the BMW is only 14 liters bigger than the Chevrolet Captiva I 2.4 i 16V FWD 141HP manual. However, the difference is so little that it would be right to say that both vehicles have similar boot space.
33

Trunk capacity with seats down

1,561 > 928 l
33

Top speed

198 > 175 km/h
The top velocity possible to be reached by the BMW X3 E83 2.0 i 150HP manual 4x4 is higher in comparison to this of the Chevrolet Captiva I 2.4 i 16V FWD 141HP manual which allows to drive the same distance on the highway faster. The difference at the level of 23 kilometers/hour is little and is not realy noticable in everyday driving.
30

Maximal torque RPM

3,755 > 4,005 revolutions/minute
The RMP where the highest torque is delivered indicates how fast an engine achieves its full output with growth in revolutions. The lower rotational speed or the wider range in which the torque is the greatest, the more the engine is flexible and the kick of acceleration should be felt earlier.
19

Range

720 > 714 km
19

Fuel tank

66 > 64 l
The winner of selected cars in the aspect of fuel tank size is BMW that can take by 2 l more fuel compared with the Chevrolet.
15

Wheelbase

2,785 > 2,709 mm
The wheelbase of a car is the distance between its front and rear wheels. The wheelbase notably affects the driving due to better car's weight distribution. BMW X3 E83 2.0 i 150HP manual 4x4 has 3 percent longer wheelbase distance in relation to Chevrolet. Wheelbase dimensions are important to the stability and steering. Hence, the mass of BMW X3 E83 should be better distributed and driving should be smoother and safer.
11

Extra-urban range

944 > 929 km
10

Number of gears

6 > 5 gears
The BMW X3 E83 2.0 i 150HP manual 4x4 has only one extra gear in comparison to the Chevrolet Captiva I. Most often the extra speed is used as an overdrive so that the previous gears can be narrower in order to allow better performance in the lower speeds. One more gear as well will contribute to smaller fuel consumption and CO2 output.
3

Price range

luxury > popular
0

Payload

2,197 > 2,158 kg
0

Tire diameter

17 > 16 ″
0

Tire profile

60 > 70 %
0

Curb weight

1,633 > 1,545 kg

Chevrolet

13 reasons for Chevrolet Captiva I 2.4 i 16V FWD 141KM manual in comparison to BMW X3 E83 2.0 i 150HP manual 4x4

Reasons for
59

Maximal torque

212 > 201 Nm
The Chevrolet Captiva I 2.4 i 16V FWD 141HP manual has 11 Nm more torque when compared to the BMW. Even though a great deal of drivers do not appreciate the maximum torque when buying a automobile, it presents the best how a vehicle is speeding up. As far as these two vehicles are concerned the difference is not really big so you probably will not feel the difference.
56

Urban consumption

12.5 > 13.3 l
The Chevrolet burns up of 6 % fuel fewer in the city in comparison to the BMW X3 E83. The Chevrolet Captiva I, which is classified in compact SUV segment, consumes of 2.9 l of fuel for every 100 km more than the average in its class. The average fuel consumption in the “small off-road 4x4” segment is 9.6 l/100Km.
22

Width

1,853 > 1,851 mm
Width of a vehicle influences on room in the cabin as well as stability on road. The Chevrolet Captiva I is widther by 2 mm than the BMW X3 E83 and is not really worth considering. The average for the „compact SUV” segment equals to 1,797 mm and is by 56 mm smaller than the width of the Chevrolet Captiva I.
12

Urban range

520 > 511 km
8

Engine capacity

2,405 > 1,994 cc
The Chevrolet Captiva I has by 21 % larger engine size when compared to the BMW. This may have a little impact on vehicle's performance, as both values does not vary much.
8

Maximum load capacity

610 > 570 kg
6

Length

4,640 > 4,569 mm
The Chevrolet Captiva I is 2 percent longer when compared to the BMW X3 E83 2.0 i 150HP manual 4x4. The length of the vehicle plays a role in terms of travelling comfort and room in the boot. The Chevrolet Captiva I probably will be offering to it's passangers more space for legs. Aditionally the Chevrolet Captiva I will be better driven but the BMW will be a slightly easier to park because of shorter length .
4

Rear track

1,572 > 1,540 mm
1

Model release date

2006 > 2003
Given that the BMW X3 E83 2.0 i 150HP manual 4x4's production started only 3 years before the Chevrolet, the distance in technology used in both vehicles shouldn’t be really huge, however, the Chevrolet Captiva I may feature slightly more new solutions applied in it.
1

Height

1,719 > 1,674 mm
If you are a tall man or you happen to carry in the trunk stuffs of big dimensions, the Chevrolet Captiva I, which is by 3 % higher than the BMW X3 E83, would be better choice for you. However, compared cars do not vary much when it comes to its height and it should not be much noticeable.
0

Maximal power RPM

5,000 > 6,200 revolutions/minute
0

Number of seats

7 > 5
0

Front track

1,563 > 1,540 mm

Cars specifications

BMW X3 E83 2.0 i 150HP manual 4x4 Chevrolet Captiva I 2.4 i 16V FWD 141HP manual
    Price range luxury popular
    Model release date 2003 2006
    Facelifting no no
    Code name E83 -
    Class compact SUV compact SUV
By using this site, you agree to the storage and use of cookie files. OK