Chevrolet Orlando: Which Version Should You Buy?
Choosing a Chevrolet Orlando starts with a clear divide between its two generations. The first-generation Compact Van, produced from 2010 to 2018, offers seven versions spanning Gasoline and Diesel engines, 130–163 hp, and Manual or Automatic gearboxes.
Choosing a Chevrolet Orlando starts with a clear divide between its two generations. The first-generation Compact Van, produced from 2010 to 2018, offers seven versions spanning Gasoline and Diesel engines, 130–163 hp, and Manual or Automatic gearboxes. The second-generation Minivan, produced from 2018 to 2023, simplifies the range to two 1.3T versions, both with 163 hp, 230 Nm and a choice of Manual or Automatic transmission. Every Orlando in the supplied data is FWD.
Chevrolet Orlando generations compared
The first generation ran from 2010 to 2018 as a Compact Van and contains seven listed versions. Its engine range is the broader of the two generations: the naturally aspirated 1.8 MT and 1.8 AT produce 141 hp, the turbocharged 1.4 MT and 1.4 AT produce 140 hp, and the turbocharged Diesel 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT versions produce either 130 or 163 hp. Buyers can therefore prioritize fuel consumption, torque, transmission type or simpler Gasoline specifications.
The second generation ran from 2018 to 2023 as a Minivan and has two versions: 1.3T MT and 1.3T AT. Both use the same 1349 cc turbocharged Gasoline engine, producing 163 hp and 230 Nm. Their main mechanical difference is the gearbox: the 1.3T MT has a 6-speed Manual, while the 1.3T AT has a 6-speed Automatic. The second generation also replaces the earlier model’s varied engine range with one shared powertrain specification.
Chevrolet Orlando engine specs
| Generation | Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders and layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018–2023 | 1.3T MT | 163 hp | 230 Nm | 1349 cc | Gasoline | 3, Inline | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2018–2023 | 1.3T AT | 163 hp | 230 Nm | 1349 cc | Gasoline | 3, Inline | Turbo | 6-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2010–2018 | 1.8 MT | 141 hp | 176 Nm | 1796 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2010–2018 | 1.8 AT | 141 hp | 176 Nm | 1796 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 6-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2010–2018 | 1.4 MT | 140 hp | 200 Nm | 1362 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2010–2018 | 2.0 MT (130 hp) | 130 hp | 315 Nm | 1998 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2010–2018 | 2.0 MT (163 hp) | 163 hp | 360 Nm | 1998 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2010–2018 | 2.0 AT | 163 hp | 360 Nm | 1998 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | 6-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2010–2018 | 1.4 AT | 140 hp | 200 Nm | 1362 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | Turbo | 6-speed Automatic | FWD |
Calculated from the supplied displacement and power figures, the second-generation 1.3T MT and 1.3T AT deliver about 121 hp per litre. That is the highest specific output in the range. The first-generation 1.4 MT and 1.4 AT produce about 103 hp per litre, while the 163 hp Diesel versions produce about 82 hp per litre.
Torque tells a different story. The first-generation 2.0 MT (163 hp) and 2.0 AT provide 360 Nm, which is 130 Nm more than either second-generation 1.3T version. Even the 130 hp 2.0 MT has 315 Nm, exceeding the second-generation engine by 85 Nm. Among first-generation Gasoline choices, the 1.4 MT and 1.4 AT provide 200 Nm, 24 Nm more than the 1.8 MT and 1.8 AT.
Chevrolet Orlando performance and fuel economy
| Generation | Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018–2023 | 1.3T MT | not measured | 190 km/h | not measured | not measured | 6.3 L/100 km |
| 2018–2023 | 1.3T AT | not measured | 190 km/h | not measured | not measured | 6.3 L/100 km |
| 2010–2018 | 1.8 MT | 11.6 s | 185 km/h | 9.7 L/100 km | 5.9 L/100 km | 7.3 L/100 km |
| 2010–2018 | 1.8 AT | 11.8 s | 185 km/h | 11.2 L/100 km | 6 L/100 km | 7.9 L/100 km |
| 2010–2018 | 1.4 MT | 11 s | 200 km/h | 7.6 L/100 km | 5.4 L/100 km | 6.4 L/100 km |
| 2010–2018 | 2.0 MT (130 hp) | 10.5 s | 180 km/h | 6.3 L/100 km | 4.7 L/100 km | 5.3 L/100 km |
| 2010–2018 | 2.0 MT (163 hp) | 10.3 s | 195 km/h | 6.4 L/100 km | 4.7 L/100 km | 5.3 L/100 km |
| 2010–2018 | 2.0 AT | 11 s | 195 km/h | 9.3 L/100 km | 5.7 L/100 km | 7 L/100 km |
| 2010–2018 | 1.4 AT | 11.2 s | 191 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
For the lowest measured combined consumption, choose either 2.0 MT. Both the 130 hp and 163 hp variants use 5.3 L/100 km combined. The 163 hp 2.0 MT adds 33 hp and 45 Nm without increasing the stated combined figure, and its 10.3-second 0–100 km/h time is 0.2 seconds quicker.
Transmission choice has a visible effect in several first-generation comparisons. The 1.8 AT uses 0.6 L/100 km more combined than the 1.8 MT and reaches 100 km/h 0.2 seconds later. Among the 163 hp Diesel versions, the 2.0 AT consumes 1.7 L/100 km more combined and takes 0.7 seconds longer to reach 100 km/h than the 2.0 MT. In the second generation, however, the 1.3T MT and 1.3T AT share the same measured 6.3 L/100 km combined consumption and 190 km/h top speed; their 0–100 km/h figures are not measured.
The first-generation 1.4 MT has the highest listed top speed at 200 km/h. The 163 hp 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT follow at 195 km/h, while the second-generation versions reach 190 km/h.
Chevrolet Orlando dimensions, weight and capacity
Overall exterior, interior and trunk dimensions are not measured in the supplied data for any version.
| Generation | Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018–2023 | 1.3T MT | 1415 kg | not measured | not measured | 45 L | not measured |
| 2018–2023 | 1.3T AT | 1470 kg | not measured | not measured | 45 L | not measured |
| 2010–2018 | 1.8 MT | 1660 kg | 2160 kg | 164 mm | 64 L | 215/60 R16; 225/50 R17 |
| 2010–2018 | 1.8 AT | 1684 kg | 2184 kg | 164 mm | 64 L | 215/60 R16; 225/50 R17 |
| 2010–2018 | 1.4 MT | 1674 kg | 2179 kg | 140 mm | 64 L | not measured |
| 2010–2018 | 2.0 MT (130 hp) | 1655 kg | 2295 kg | not measured | 64 L | 215/60 R16; 225/50 R17; 235/45 R18 |
| 2010–2018 | 2.0 MT (163 hp) | 1655 kg | 2295 kg | not measured | 64 L | 215/60 R16; 225/50 R17; 235/45 R18 |
| 2010–2018 | 2.0 AT | 1659 kg | 2291 kg | not measured | 64 L | not measured |
| 2010–2018 | 1.4 AT | not measured | not measured | 140 mm | 64 L | not measured |
The second-generation Automatic carries a 55 kg weight penalty over the Manual despite identical engine output and torque. Its calculated kerb-weight-to-power ratio is about 9.0 kg per hp, compared with about 8.7 kg per hp for the 1.3T MT.
Among first-generation versions with measured kerb weight, the 163 hp 2.0 MT has the strongest calculated ratio at about 10.2 kg per hp. The 2.0 AT is also about 10.2 kg per hp, while the 130 hp 2.0 MT has about 12.7 kg per hp. The 1.8 AT weighs 24 kg more than the 1.8 MT, with no increase over its 141 hp output.
The first-generation fuel tank holds 64 L in every listed version, which is 19 L more than the 45 L tank fitted to both second-generation versions. Ground clearance is measured only for selected first-generation variants: 164 mm for the 1.8 MT and 1.8 AT, and 140 mm for the 1.4 MT and 1.4 AT.
Which Chevrolet Orlando version should you buy?
The 1.3T MT is the strongest second-generation choice if lower kerb weight matters. It matches the 1.3T AT at 163 hp, 230 Nm, 190 km/h and 6.3 L/100 km combined, yet weighs 55 kg less. Choose the 1.3T AT when the 6-speed Automatic is the deciding requirement; the supplied figures show no consumption or top-speed penalty, although acceleration is not measured for either version.
For a first-generation balance of measured economy, acceleration and output, the 2.0 MT (163 hp) stands out. It combines 163 hp and the range-high 360 Nm with 5.3 L/100 km combined consumption and the quickest recorded 0–100 km/h time of 10.3 seconds. Compared with the 2.0 MT (130 hp), it has 33 hp and 45 Nm more at the same kerb weight, gross weight and combined consumption.
Choose the 2.0 AT if 360 Nm and an Automatic gearbox matter more than consumption or acceleration. Against the 163 hp 2.0 MT, it retains the same power, torque and 195 km/h top speed, but uses 1.7 L/100 km more combined and is 0.7 seconds slower to 100 km/h.
Among the first-generation Gasoline models, the 1.4 MT offers the most favorable measured combination: 200 Nm, 6.4 L/100 km combined and the range-high 200 km/h top speed. The 1.8 MT has just 1 hp more, but 24 Nm less torque and consumes 0.9 L/100 km more combined. The 1.8 versions remain the naturally aspirated choices, while the 1.4 versions are Turbo.
Reliability, engine-oil type, oil capacity, maintenance history, prices and current sale availability are not measured in the supplied data, so they cannot determine the recommendation. Based strictly on the recorded specifications, the clearest picks are the 1.3T MT for the lighter second-generation package, the 2.0 MT (163 hp) for first-generation torque and measured economy, and the 1.4 MT for a Gasoline first-generation alternative.