Mitsubishi Outlander 2003 vs Nissan X-Trail 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 176 NM | 192 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.4 seconds | 11.3 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 4 HP less power than Nissan X-Trail, whereas torque is 16 NM less than Nissan X-Trail. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.4 | 9.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.7 l/100km | 10.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Outlander could require 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 640 km in combined cycle | |
| 770 km on highway | 780 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 550 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 520'000 km | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mitsubishi Outlander engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 44 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Space Wagon | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Nissan Primera, Nissan Serena, Nissan Sentra | |
| 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 Mitsubishi Outlander 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: | 4.54 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.68 m | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander is 3 cm longer than the Nissan X-Trail, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 402 litres | 410 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1705 litres | 1841 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Outlander has 8 litres less trunk space than the Nissan X-Trail. This could mean that the Mitsubishi Outlander uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan X-Trail (by 136 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 0.8 metres more than that of the Nissan X-Trail, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`995 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 2600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.5/10 | 7.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |