Audi Q5 2008 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 211 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 232 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.2 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
Audi Q5 is more dynamic to drive. Audi Q5 engine produces 41 HP more power than Mitsubishi Outlander, whereas torque is 118 NM more than Mitsubishi Outlander. Thanks to more power Audi Q5 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.3 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.1 l/100km | 10.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Audi Q5 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Audi Q5 could require 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi Q5 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 900 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 1100 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 580 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi Q5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | 215 mm (8.5 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mitsubishi Outlander can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 18 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Audi A4, Audi A5 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Peugeot 4007, Citroen C-Crosser | |
| 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 Audi Q5 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: | 4.63 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.68 m | |
| Audi Q5 is 4 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Outlander, 10 cm wider, while the height of Audi Q5 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 774 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1560 litres | 1691 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has more luggage space. Audi Q5 has 234 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Outlander. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 131 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Audi Q5 is 1.4 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means Audi Q5 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`320 | 2`290 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | below average | |
| Audi Q5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Outlander has serious deffects in 125 percent more cases than Audi Q5, so Audi Q5 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 200 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi Q5 has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |