Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2013 vs Mitsubishi ASX 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 1.8 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque and Mitsubishi ASX have the same engine power, but Land Rover Range Rover Evoque torque is 100 NM more than Mitsubishi ASX. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.5 | 5.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi ASX is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover Evoque consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi ASX, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi ASX. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 920 km in combined cycle | 1050 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 1200 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 900 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. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 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 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Freelander, Jaguar XF, Land Rover Discovery Sport | 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. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 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. | |||
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2013 2.2 engine: This engine is recognized for its reliability, power, and relatively low fuel consumption, as well as its durability in demanding conditions without frequent failures. However, it is sensitible to oil quality ... More about Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2013 2.2 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.36 m | 4.30 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.61 m | 1.63 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is larger, but slightly lower. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is 6 cm longer than the Mitsubishi ASX, 13 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 550 litres | 384 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1219 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has more luggage capacity. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has 166 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi ASX. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is 0.7 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi ASX, which means Land Rover Range Rover Evoque can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`350 | 2`060 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 13 600 | 10 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
|
Mitsubishi ASX has
| |