Volvo XC60 SUV 2.0 D3 136HP manual vs Chevrolet Captiva II SUV 2.4 DOHC 167HP manual

Volvo XC60 SUV 2.0 D3 136HP manual

Source: wikipedia.org M 93 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany

17 reasons for

Volvo XC60 SUV, model available from 2008.
It has 2.0 D3 136HP diesel engine produced from 2012 to 2013.
Drive has manual gearbox.

7 reasons for

Chevrolet Captiva II SUV, model available from 2011.
It has 2.4 DOHC 167HP petrol engine produced from 2011 to 2012.
Drive on the front axle has manual, 6 speed gearbox.

Chevrolet Captiva II SUV 2.4 DOHC 167HP manual
Volvo

17 reasons for Volvo XC60 SUV 2.0 D3 136KM manual in comparison to Chevrolet Captiva II SUV 2.4 DOHC 167HP manual

Reasons for
112

Average consumption

5.6 > 8.9 l
The fuel economy is distinctly to Volvo XC60 SUV 2.0 D3 136HP manual's advantage. This vehicle burns 3.3 l less oil in the combined cycle compared to the Chevrolet Captiva II. It is also worth to know that average fuel consumption in the mixed cycle for the mini 4x4 segment, in which the Volvo XC60 is classified, equals to 7.5 l whereas the Volvo XC60 SUV 2.0 D3 136HP manual consumes by 25 % less amount of fuel than the average.
59

Maximal torque

350 > 230 Nm
The Volvo XC60 has 52 % more torque in comparison to the Chevrolet Captiva II. The difference at this level is relevant, so that the Volvo XC60 SUV 2.0 D3 136HP manual will be seeding up significantly faster.
56

Urban consumption

6.9 > 11.7 l
The Volvo XC60 SUV 2.0 D3 136HP manual consumes of 41 percent oil fewer running around the town compared to the Chevrolet. The Volvo XC60 SUV 2.0 D3 136HP manual, as a representative of compact SUV class, burns up 2.7 l per 100 km fewer than the medium level in its class. The average fuel consumption in the “mini 4x4” class is 9.6 l per 100 km.
30

Maximal torque RPM

2,250 > 4,605 revolutions/minute
This big difference results from the fact that both cars have different engines. The Volvo XC60 SUV is equipped with the diesel engine and the Chevrolet is equipped with the petrol engine. In case of different kinds of engines, comparing this characteristic seems to be pointless.
24

Extra-urban consumption

4.9 > 7.4 l
22

Width

1,889 > 1,868 mm
The width of the vehicle influences on passanger's inner room and stability of driving. The Volvo XC60 is 21 millimeters wider when compared to the Chevrolet Captiva II SUV 2.4 DOHC 167HP manual. It is often clearly perceptible by those sitting in front, who have more room for their elbows.
19

Range

1,228 > 730 km
19

Fuel tank

70 > 64 l
The winner of these two vehicles in the aspect of fuel tank size is Volvo that can hold by 6 l more fuel in relation to the Chevrolet Captiva II SUV.
15

Wheelbase

2,775 > 2,697 mm
The Volvo XC60 SUV 2.0 D3 136HP manual has 78 mm longer wheelbase in relation to Chevrolet Captiva II. Therefore the Volvo XC60 is more safe and has a better stability. What is more, longer wheelbase affects convenient and more comfortable riding.
14

Cylinders

5 > 4
12

Urban range

1,014 > 556 km
11

Extra-urban range

1,429 > 878 km
4

Rear track

1,586 > 1,576 mm
3

Price range

luxury > popular
0

Maximal power RPM

3,500 > 5,600 revolutions/minute
0

Front track

1,635 > 1,567 mm
0

Valves

20 > 16

Chevrolet

7 reasons for Chevrolet Captiva II SUV 2.4 DOHC 167KM manual in comparison to Volvo XC60 SUV 2.0 D3 136HP manual

Reasons for
135

Maximal power

167 > 136 hp
The horsepower is a characteristic that majority of us pay the greatest attention to. In this case, it is the Chevrolet Captiva II which has by 31 horsepower more when compared to the Volvo XC60 SUV 2.0 D3 136HP manual, which makes this car somewhat quicker. Having more horsepower the Chevrolet Captiva II SUV 2.4 DOHC 167HP manual should as well provide a bit more efficiency in specific gears.
50

Acceleration 0-100 km/h

10.5 > 11.2 s
The Chevrolet Captiva II SUV 2.4 DOHC 167HP manual can reach the speed of 100Km/h in 10.5 s, which is 6 percent less than the Volvo XC60. However the difference is not as much significant to be taken into consideration when buying a automobile.
38

Trunk capacity

943 > 495 l
The boot of the Chevrolet Captiva II SUV 2.4 DOHC 167HP manual is 91 % bigger in comparison to the Volvo. It is sensible difference so, in this category the Chevrolet Captiva II SUV will be a way more functional. The larger the boot, the more baggage you can carry.
8

Engine capacity

2,384 > 1,985 cc
The Chevrolet Captiva II SUV has by 20 percent larger engine capacity when compared to the Volvo XC60. This may have a little impact as far as acceleration is concerned, as both values does not differ much.
6

Length

4,668 > 4,629 mm
The Chevrolet Captiva II is 1 percent longer when compared to the Volvo. Long cars have roomy cabin and usually have more storage space. Although the Chevrolet Captiva II seems to be better for families or drivers who value convenient driving, the Volvo XC60 may be more appropriate to city drivers because it will not cause troubles with parking and will be more maneuverable.
1

Model release date

2011 > 2008
The difference in release date between presented vehicles is only 3 years, however, new technologies for vehicles are appearing at a blistering pace what may cause that the Chevrolet may have more modern technologieswhich in a consequence may deliver you more joy of having it.
1

Height

1,727 > 1,714 mm
If you are a tall man or you happen to carry in the trunk stuffs of large dimensions, the Chevrolet Captiva II SUV 2.4 DOHC 167HP manual, which is by 1 % higher than the Volvo, would be appropriate option for you. However, these two vehicles do not differ much when it comes to its height and it should not be much noticeable.

Cars specifications

Volvo XC60 SUV 2.0 D3 136HP manual Chevrolet Captiva II SUV 2.4 DOHC 167HP manual
    Gross trailer weight - 1,495 kg
    Price range luxury popular
    Model release date 2008 2011
    Facelifting no no
    Class compact SUV compact SUV
By using this site, you agree to the storage and use of cookie files. OK