Mitsubishi ASX 2016 vs Nissan X-Trail 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 177 HP | |
| Torque: | 360 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Nissan X-Trail is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi ASX engine produces 27 HP less power than Nissan X-Trail, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Nissan X-Trail. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi ASX reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | no data | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| 770 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
| Ground clearance: | 180 mm (7.1 inches) | 210 mm (8.3 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Nissan X-Trail can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi Outlander, Mitsubishi L 200 | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Opel Vivaro | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan X-Trail might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Nissan X-Trail 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. | |||
| Nissan X-Trail 2016 2.0 engine: The engine has a good power to fuel consumption ratio and, with careful maintenance, a long service life. The most common problems with these engines are with the fuel injection system and lubrication. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.36 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.63 m | 1.72 m | |
|
Mitsubishi ASX is smaller. Mitsubishi ASX is 29 cm shorter than the Nissan X-Trail, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi ASX is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 419 litres | 135 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1219 litres | 1877 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Mitsubishi ASX has 284 litres more trunk space than the Nissan X-Trail. The Nissan X-Trail 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 X-Trail (by 658 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi ASX is 0.6 metres less than that of the Nissan X-Trail, which means Mitsubishi ASX can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`060 | 2`400 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | below average | |
| Mitsubishi ASX has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan X-Trail has serious deffects in 80 percent more cases than Mitsubishi ASX, so Mitsubishi ASX quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 400 | 11 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi ASX has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |