Compare Chevrolet Volt 2 vs Chevrolet Cruze 2 Hatchback vs Chrysler PT Cruiser
Variants
1.4
1.4 AT
1.4 Turbo AT
1.6 TD
1.6 TD AT
1.6
2.0 141PS
2.0 141PS AT
2.0 150PS
2.0 150PS AT
2.2D 150PS
2.2D 121PS
2.4
2.4 AT
2.4T 182PS
2.4T 182PS AT
2.4T 220PS
2.4T 220PS AT
Capacity
Cargo Capacity
301 L / 10.6 cu-ft
Coolant Capacity
7.0 L / 7.4 qt
6.2 L / 6.6 qt
Engine Oil Capacity
4.0 L / 4.2 qt
4.7 L / 5.0 qt
Fuel Capacity
33.7 L / 8.9 gal
57.0 L / 15.1 gal
Passengers
5
5
5
Chassis
Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs
Brakes | Rear
Ventilated discs
Power Steering
Electric Steering
Electric Steering
Hydraulic Steering
Suspension | Front
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
Suspension | Rear
Semi-independent, Torsion
Semi-dependent beam with stabilizer lateral stability, Trailing arm, Coil spring
Semi-independent
Tire Size
215/50 R17
Turning Circle
11.1 m / 36.4 ft
11.8 m / 38.7 ft
Construction
Battery | Capacity
18.4 kWh (gross)
Body Style
5-door plug-in hybrid Hatchback
5-door Hatchback
5-door Station Wagon
Dimensions
Size | Height
1432 mm / 56.4 in
Size | Length
4582 mm / 180.4 in
4453 mm / 175.3 in
Size | Width
1809 mm / 71.2 in
1791 mm / 70.5 in
Track Width | Front
1540.0 mm / 60.6 in
Track Width | Rear
1570.0 mm / 61.8 in
1552.0 mm / 61.1 in
Weight
1607.0 kg / 3542.8 lbs
Wheel Size
7.0J x 17
Wheelbase
2694 mm / 106.1 in
2700 mm / 106.3 in
Performance
Fuel Economy
5.6 L/100km / 42.0 MPG (urban)
Powertrain
Drivetrain Layout
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Engine | Bore
74.0 mm / 2.9 in
Engine | Compression Ratio
12.5:1
Engine | Displacement
1.5 L / 90.9 cu-in / 1490.0 cc
Engine | Power
101.0 hp / 75.3 kW @ 5600 rpm + 149.0 hp / 111.1 kW (electric motor)
Engine | Redline
5600 rpm
Engine | Specific Output
67.8 hp/L / 1.1 hp/cu-in
Engine | Stroke
86.6 mm / 3.4 in
Engine | Type
direct-injected petrol inline-4 DOHC engine with 4 values per cylinder
Transmission | Type
Multi-mode electric
Production
Availability
2016 ~ 2019
2017 ~ 2018
Reviews
Neofiliac score
26%
20%
2%
Pros
- Longer range than Mk1
- Slightly improved styling
- Good fuel economy ratings
- So ugly that it's an icon
Cons
- Miserably low engine output
- Only available with tiny engines
- No independent rear suspensions
- Low cargo capacity
- No powerful engine options
- Only available with small engines
- No independent rear suspensions
- Can't even reach 200km/h
- No powerful engine options
- Not independent rear suspensions
- Truly epitomizes ugliness
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.