Ford EcoSport 2013 vs Mitsubishi ASX 2017
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 117 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 154 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.7 seconds | 11.4 seconds | |
| Ford EcoSport engine produces 8 HP more power than Mitsubishi ASX, whereas torque is 16 NM more than Mitsubishi ASX. Despite the higher power, Ford EcoSport reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 | 6.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
By specification Ford EcoSport consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi ASX, which means that by driving the Ford EcoSport over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford EcoSport consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi ASX. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 1030 km in combined cycle | |
| 1100 km on highway | 1260 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 910 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi ASX gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 180 mm (7.1 inches) | 190 mm (7.5 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mitsubishi ASX 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. Note, however, that this Mitsubishi ASX version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 280'000 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 Ford EcoSport engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 16 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi ASX might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Mitsubishi ASX 2017 1.6 engine: The Mitsubishi 4A92 is a 1.6-liter inline four-cylinder engine with a timing chain, known primarily for its low fuel consumption and relatively simple construction. It is widely used in models such as the Lancer and ASX. While the engine is fairly economical and inexpensive to maintain, it also has ... More about Mitsubishi ASX 2017 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.27 m | 4.30 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.64 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford EcoSport is 2 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi ASX, width is practically the same also the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 333 litres | 384 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1238 litres | 1219 litres | |
| Ford EcoSport has 51 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi ASX. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford EcoSport (by 19 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 1`715 kg | 1`870 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`350 kg | 1`260 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 365 kg | 610 kg | |
| Ford EcoSport load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 67 procentiem less than Mitsubishi ASX. Therefore, Mitsubishi ASX is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mitsubishi ASX has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford EcoSport has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mitsubishi ASX, so Mitsubishi ASX quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 6800 | 11 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford EcoSport has
|
Mitsubishi ASX has
| |