Citroen C-Crosser 2007 vs Mitsubishi ASX 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 1.8 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 156 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 10 seconds | |
| Citroen C-Crosser engine produces 6 HP more power than Mitsubishi ASX, whereas torque is 80 NM more than Mitsubishi ASX. Thanks to more power Citroen C-Crosser reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 5.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi ASX is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen C-Crosser consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi ASX, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Citroen C-Crosser could require 225 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen C-Crosser consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi ASX. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 1100 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 1280 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 920 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi ASX 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 | 330'000 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 Citroen C-Crosser engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi Outlander, Peugeot 4007 | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Citroen C-Crosser 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 | 4.30 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.62 m | |
|
Citroen C-Crosser is larger. Citroen C-Crosser is 36 cm longer than the Mitsubishi ASX, 4 cm wider, while the height of Citroen C-Crosser is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 184 litres | 419 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 184 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 441 litres | 419 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1686 litres | 1219 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Citroen C-Crosser has more luggage space (by 22 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Citroen C-Crosser (by 467 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 ASX, which means Citroen C-Crosser can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`410 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 6200 | 6600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen C-Crosser has
|
Mitsubishi ASX has
| |