Mitsubishi ASX 2012 vs Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2011
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 420 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 8.5 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi ASX engine produces 40 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, whereas torque is 120 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.7 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 8.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi ASX is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi ASX consumes 0.8 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 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi ASX consumes 2.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1050 km in combined cycle | 920 km in combined cycle | |
| 1200 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 900 km with real consumption | 680 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: | 330'000 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: | 5 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. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2011 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 2011 2.2 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.30 m | 4.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.63 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 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 384 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 166 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: | 2`060 kg | 2`350 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 10 600 | 12 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi ASX has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
| |