Mitsubishi Carisma 1997 vs Audi A3 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 174 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Carisma is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Carisma engine produces 25 HP more power than Audi A3, whereas torque is 29 NM more than Audi A3. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Carisma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi A3, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Carisma over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi A3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 890 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 1110 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 810 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Carisma gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 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 Audi A3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 23 years | 1 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volvo V40, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Galant | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Seat Leon, Seat Toledo, Seat Ibiza | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Carisma might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.15 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.42 m | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma is 33 cm longer than the Audi A3, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Carisma is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
660 litres | 1110 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma has 80 litres more trunk space than the Audi A3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Audi A3 (by 450 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Carisma is 0.5 metres less than that of the Audi A3, which means Mitsubishi Carisma can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`685 | 1`600 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Mitsubishi Carisma has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Audi A3 has serious deffects in 125 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Carisma, so Mitsubishi Carisma quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 8.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Carisma has
|
Audi A3 has
| |