Mitsubishi ASX 2012 vs Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Mitsubishi ASX) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Land Rover Range Rover Evoque) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 117 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 154 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.4 seconds | 9.6 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi ASX engine produces 33 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, whereas torque is 246 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi ASX reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.9 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi ASX is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi ASX consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi ASX over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi ASX consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1080 km in combined cycle | 920 km in combined cycle | |
| 1280 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 910 km with real consumption | 740 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: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 560'000 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: | 16 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Freelander, Jaguar XF, Land Rover Discovery Sport | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| 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. | |||
| Mitsubishi ASX 2012 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 2012 1.6 engine 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: | 4.30 m | 4.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.61 m | |
|
Mitsubishi ASX is smaller, but slightly higher. Mitsubishi ASX is 6 cm shorter than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, 13 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi ASX is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 442 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1219 litres | no data | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has more luggage space. Mitsubishi ASX has 108 litres less trunk space than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi ASX is 0.7 metres less than that of the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, which means Mitsubishi ASX can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`870 kg | 2`350 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`260 kg | 1`715 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 610 kg | 635 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 10 600 | 13 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi ASX has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
| |