Mitsubishi ASX 2016 vs Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2015
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 117 HP | 240 HP | |
| Torque: | 154 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.4 seconds | 7.6 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi ASX engine produces 123 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, whereas torque is 186 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi ASX reaches 100 km/h speed 3.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.1 | 7.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 10.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi ASX is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi ASX consumes 1.7 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 255 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi ASX consumes 3.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1030 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| 1260 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 880 km with real consumption | 630 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: | 350'000 km | 300'000 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 Mitsubishi ASX engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Land Rover Freelander, Land Rover Discovery Sport, Jaguar XJ, Jaguar XF | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.30 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.99 m | |
| Height: | 1.63 m | 1.66 m | |
|
Mitsubishi ASX is smaller. Mitsubishi ASX is 8 cm shorter than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, 22 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi ASX is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 384 litres | 575 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1219 litres | no data | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has more luggage space. Mitsubishi ASX has 191 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 (kg): | 1`870 | 2`350 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 11 400 | 22 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi ASX has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
| |