Honda Accord 2003 vs Mitsubishi Lancer 2004
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The wagon generally has more cargo space due to a larger trunk door opening, a roof that extends as far back as possible, and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into cargo space. Sedans tend to be quieter than wagons due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 190 HP | 135 HP | |
| Torque: | 223 NM | 176 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
| Honda Accord engine produces 55 HP more power than Mitsubishi Lancer, whereas torque is 47 NM more than Mitsubishi Lancer. Despite the higher power, Honda Accord reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.0 | 8.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.1 l/100km | 8.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Lancer is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda Accord consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Lancer, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Honda Accord could require 240 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda Accord consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Lancer. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 590 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 760 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 580 km with real consumption | ||
| Honda Accord gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 520'000 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 Lancer engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 44 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mitsubishi Outlander, Mitsubishi Space Wagon | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Lancer might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mitsubishi Lancer 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: | 4.75 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Honda Accord is larger. Honda Accord is 27 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Lancer, 7 cm wider, while the height of Honda Accord is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 572 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1657 litres | no data | |
|
Honda Accord has more luggage capacity. Honda Accord has 142 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Lancer. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`060 | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 8.7/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda Accord has
|
Mitsubishi Lancer has
| |