GM’s Diesel Captiva Compact SUV Promises 29MPG
16 January 2006
 |
| The new Captiva |
GM is introducing the Chevrolet Captiva, its first diesel-powered compact SUV (earlier post), at the Geneva motor show in March with the first application of its new 2.0-liter turbo diesel delivering 150 hp and estimated fuel economy of 29 mpg US.
Three engines initially will be available for the Captiva, including the brand new, common rail diesel engine jointly developed by GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Company, GM Powertrain and VM Motori.
The gasoline versions include a 2.4-liter inline-four delivering 142 hp and 220 Nm torque with fuel consumption of 10.8 l/100km (21.8 mpg US) and a 3.2-liter V6 generating 225 hp with maximum torque of 302 Nm.
The 16-valve diesel unit with variable geometry turbo delivers its 150 hp (110 kW) at 4,000 rpm and maximum torque of 310 Nm at 2,000 rpm. It is the first application of a family of diesel powertrains that will become available in other Chevrolet products in Europe, beginning in 2006.
As an aside, the new 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line Hybrid just introduced at the Detroit show (earlier post) with a Belt Alternator Starter (BAS) system mated to a 2.4-liter gasoline engine and four-speed transmission also delivers an estimated 29 mpg US.
The Captiva is based on the S3X concept vehicle. At the Paris Motor Show in 2004, GM showed a diesel hybrid version of the S3X concept—a vehicle that used GM’s BAS system to provide stop-start functionality and regenerative braking.
| Chevrolet Captiva | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gasoline | Diesel | ||
| Engine | 2.4-liter | 3.2-liter | 2.0-liter |
| Power | 142 hp (106 kW) | 225 hp (168 kW) | 150 hp (110 kW) |
| Torque | 220 Nm | 302 Nm | 310 Nm |
| Fuel consumption (l/100km) | 10.8 | n/a | 8.1 |
| Fuel economy (mpg US) | 21.8 | n/a | 29 mpg US |
| Emissions | Euro 4 | Euro 4 | Euro 4 |
Does GM still plan on assembling this with old chewing gum using blind children in Bangaldesh?
Posted by: Lucas | 16 January 2006 at 12:07 PM
A mere 25MPG is not very fuel efficient in a vehicle of this size, considering that the VW Jetta Diesel gets 46MPG, and the huge Daimle-Chrysler Sprinter van gets 27MPG.
This looks to be another boondoggle for GM in which the consumer realizes she can purcase a better vehicle for less money elsewhere.
Posted by: Fuego | 16 January 2006 at 12:24 PM
The article says 29 MPG for Captiva -- my parents old Peugeot 504d wagon got about the same (~30 hwy).
Posted by: TDI_bio_dvr | 16 January 2006 at 12:33 PM
But it's new and fuel efficient for GM! :)
Posted by: Alfred | 16 January 2006 at 04:24 PM
Not very impressive, a toyota Hilux 2.5 in real life can also go 600km city drive with its 75L full tank, in real life. Thats about 29mpg/8kmpl.
Seem like all of us here are eco concious thou! Nobody care about its interior, exterior, body kit etc :p
Posted by: rexis | 16 January 2006 at 04:48 PM
What do they mean by 29 mpg? If it's 29 highway, then, no, that's not impressive. 29 city, however, would be another thing.
I wonder if Americans are really ready for diesels in a mass market vehicle (with apologies to VW and Mercedes owners). That's assuming they plan to sell it here, which I wasn't able to determine from this piece.
Posted by: Mark | 17 January 2006 at 07:10 AM
The Captiva uses 8.1 liters per 100 km (8.1/100) in the combined cycle. The Jetta uses 5.3/100 in the combined cycle. Way better than the captiva.
However the Jetta is only putting out 110hp to the Captiva's 150hp, the Jetta wieghts less, has a smaller wind profile as it's a car and lower to the ground and the Jetta isn't moving the larger AWD drive train.
Instead of comparing a car to a SUV why not compare SUV to SUV, a comparison in which the diesel Captiva's 8.1/100 far outshines the diesel Touareg's 9.8/100?
Posted by: Dinger | 17 January 2006 at 10:44 AM
comparing apples to apples GGMs Captiva doesn't sound like a bad deal at all. I would be willing, as a five time Toyota buyer, to put my hard earned money behind it. Gosh all mighty isn't it time we bought American.
It's soon gonna be too late to find aomething made
in this country. What are we waiting for?
Posted by: Irv Behar | 18 January 2006 at 06:52 AM
i assume u meant made by an american company rather then made in america. and what is the basis for your preference of american companies? you don't really think they have "america's own best interest" at mind do you?
Posted by: bezboz | 18 January 2006 at 08:46 AM
I just wish someone could come out with a bare bone car like the 60s vw bug. Have a solid little diesel engine and pull 50 mpg with little upkeep.
I do not need a 4000 lb suv to get me where I need to go. I do need a solid suv that can last more than 3 years and have a solid resale value.
Posted by: Daniel McAmoil | 18 October 2006 at 02:16 PM
Compare thrust to weight is a greater measure of efficiency, these cars could provide 5 litres per 100km if they tuned them as they were designed, remove all the governers which restrict intake flow and exhaust flow. The turbo diesel 3.0lt isuzu Jackaroo/bighorn/trooper gives me 8.1 litres per 100km around 9 in city. This is heavier and older yet it still shows that the car companies are in bed with the oil companies..
Posted by: kris | 24 February 2007 at 02:38 AM
Mean people
Posted by: Kevin | 23 March 2007 at 06:58 PM