Mitsubishi ASX 2010 vs Nissan Qashqai 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 1.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 103 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi ASX is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi ASX engine produces 47 HP more power than Nissan Qashqai, whereas torque is 60 NM more than Nissan Qashqai. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi ASX reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.7 | 5.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 5.9 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Qashqai is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi ASX consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Qashqai, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi ASX could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi ASX consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Qashqai. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1100 km in combined cycle | 1220 km in combined cycle | |
| 1280 km on highway | 1380 km on highway | ||
| 920 km with real consumption | 1100 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Qashqai 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) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 22 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster, Nissan Juke | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Qashqai might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Nissan Qashqai 2010 1.5 engine: The engine has many modifications, is sufficiently common and spare parts are available. The fuel consumption/power ratio is good. The fuel injection system can be a problem and the timing belt change interval ... More about Nissan Qashqai 2010 1.5 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.30 m | 4.33 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.61 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mitsubishi ASX is 4 cm shorter than the Nissan Qashqai, 1 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 419 litres | 410 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1219 litres | 1513 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Mitsubishi ASX has 9 litres more trunk space than the Nissan Qashqai. The Nissan Qashqai may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Qashqai (by 294 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`930 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | low | |
| Mitsubishi ASX has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Qashqai has serious deffects in 90 percent more cases than Mitsubishi ASX, so Mitsubishi ASX quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5800 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi ASX has
|
Nissan Qashqai has
| |