Mitsubishi ASX 2010 vs Nissan Qashqai 2008
| 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 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 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.7 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 6.1 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Qashqai is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi ASX consumes 0.2 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 30 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi ASX consumes 0.7 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 | 1180 km in combined cycle | |
| 1280 km on highway | 1350 km on highway | ||
| 920 km with real consumption | 1060 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 | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Renault Clio, Renault Megane, Dacia Logan, Nissan Note | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.30 m | 4.32 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.61 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mitsubishi ASX is 3 cm shorter than the Nissan Qashqai, 1 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Seats: | 5 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 419 litres | 410 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 410 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 419 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1219 litres | 1520 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Qashqai (by 301 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi ASX is 0.4 metres less than that of the Nissan Qashqai, which means Mitsubishi ASX can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`170 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | low | |
| Mitsubishi ASX has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Qashqai has serious deffects in 155 percent more cases than Mitsubishi ASX, so Mitsubishi ASX quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5800 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi ASX has
|
Nissan Qashqai has
| |