Citroen C-Crosser 2007 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.3 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 156 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
| Citroen C-Crosser engine produces 6 HP more power than Mitsubishi Outlander, the torque is the same for both cars. Despite the higher power, Citroen C-Crosser reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen C-Crosser consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Citroen C-Crosser could require 270 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen C-Crosser consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 1270 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 840 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Outlander gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 480'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi Outlander, Peugeot 4007 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi L 200, Mitsubishi ASX | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Outlander might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Citroen C-Crosser engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.65 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.68 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Citroen C-Crosser and Mitsubishi Outlander are practically the same length. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 184 litres | 220 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 184 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 441 litres | 220 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1686 litres | 986 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Citroen C-Crosser has more luggage space (by 221 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Citroen C-Crosser (by 700 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen C-Crosser is 1.4 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means Citroen C-Crosser can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`410 | 2`170 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 6200 | 9800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen C-Crosser has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |