Compare Chevrolet Malibu 8 vs Chevrolet Cruze 2 Sedan vs Chevrolet Evanda
Variants
2.0D
2.0D AT
2.0T AT 2014
2.0T AT 2013
2.4 167 hp
2.4 167hp AT
2.4 182hp AT
2.4 Hybrid
2.5 196hp AT
2.5 197hp AT
1.4T
1.4T AT
1.6D
1.6D AT
2.0
2.0 AT
Capacity
Cargo Capacity
394 L / 13.9 cu-ft ~ 419 L / 14.8 cu-ft
435 L / 15.4 cu-ft
Fuel Capacity
65.0 L / 17.2 gal
Passengers
5
5
5
Payload
490 kg / 1080 lbs
Chassis
Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs
Brakes | Rear
Disc
Disc
Disc
Power Steering
Electric Steering
Suspension | Front
MacPherson
Independent, Spring MacPherson, with stabilizer
Spring Strut
Suspension | Rear
Multi-link
Semi-dependent beam with stabilizer lateral stability, Trailing arm, Coil spring
Helical spring
Tire Size
205/65 R16
Turning Circle
11.4 m / 37.4 ft
11.8 m / 38.7 ft
Construction
Battery | Capacity
0.5 kWh (gross)
Body Style
4-door Sedan
4-door Sedan
Dimensions
Size | Height
1462 mm / 57.6 in
1458 mm / 57.4 in
1440 mm / 56.7 in
Size | Length
4865 mm / 191.5 in
4666 mm / 183.7 in
4770 mm / 187.8 in
Size | Width
1854 mm / 73.0 in
1791 mm / 70.5 in
1815 mm / 71.5 in
Track Width | Front
1579.0 mm / 62.2 in
1527.0 mm / 60.1 in
1550.0 mm / 61.0 in
Track Width | Rear
1575.0 mm / 62.0 in
1552.0 mm / 61.1 in
1535.0 mm / 60.4 in
Weight
1422.0 kg / 3135.0 lbs
Wheel Size
16 in
Wheelbase
2738 mm / 107.8 in
2700 mm / 106.3 in
2700 mm / 106.3 in
Powertrain
Drivetrain Layout
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Emission Standard
Euro 5
Engine | Bore
86.0 mm / 3.4 in
Engine | Compression Ratio
9.6:1
Engine | Displacement
2.0 L / 121.9 cu-in / 1998.0 cc
Engine | Power
131.0 hp / 97.7 kW @ 5400 rpm
Engine | Redline
7000 rpm
Engine | Specific Output
65.6 hp/L / 1.1 hp/cu-in
Engine | Stroke
86.0 mm / 3.4 in
Engine | Torque
181 Nm / 133.5 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm
Engine | Type
Naturally-aspirated multi-port injected petrol inline-4 DOHC engine with 4 values per cylinder
Transmission | Gears
6-speed
Production
Availability
2016 ~ 2019
2004 ~ 2006
Reviews
Neofiliac score
41%
15%
11%
Pros
- Good 0.28 drag coefficient
- Good towing capacity
- Modern design
Cons
- Horrible 0-100kph time
- Stuck with MacPherson struts in the front
- No powerful engine options
- Only available with small engines
- Stuck with MacPherson struts in the front
- Horrible 0-100kph time
- Miserably low engine output
- Only available with small engines
- Limited by MacPherson strut front suspensions
Remove
Remove
Remove
Add up to 4 products to the comparison using the search bar above
Information on this page is provided on an as-is basis. No warranty on accuracy is implied. This page may contain affiliate links to third-party merchants such as Amazon and eBay. If you make a purchase using the supplied link, we may receive a commission. Neofiliac places the utmost respect for your privacy. We use no cookie whatsoever beyond that needed for the proper functioning of the website.