Dodge Durango 2013 vs Mitsubishi L 200 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.6 Petrol | 2.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 294 HP | 154 HP | |
| Torque: | 353 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 12.2 seconds | |
| Dodge Durango engine produces 140 HP more power than Mitsubishi L 200, but torque is 27 NM less than Mitsubishi L 200. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.2 | 7.1 | |
|
The Mitsubishi L 200 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Dodge Durango consumes 4.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi L 200, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Dodge Durango could require 615 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 93 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 1050 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1200 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi L 200 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 207 mm (8.1 inches) | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 460'000 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 Dodge Durango engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler Grand Voyager, Chrysler 300C, Jeep Wrangler | 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. Dodge Durango might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Dodge Durango 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: | 5.11 m | 5.21 m | |
| Width: | 1.92 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.80 m | 1.78 m | |
| Dodge Durango is 10 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi L 200, 14 cm wider, while the height of Dodge Durango is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 490 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 490 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2410 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 12.5 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Dodge Durango is 0.7 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi L 200, which means Dodge Durango can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`948 | 2`850 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 32 400 | 16 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Dodge Durango has
|
Mitsubishi L 200 has
| |