Mitsubishi ASX 2019 vs Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2018
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Mitsubishi ASX) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Land Rover Range Rover Evoque) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 195 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.7 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi ASX and Land Rover Range Rover Evoque have the same engine power, but Mitsubishi ASX torque is 185 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. Mitsubishi ASX reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.5 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mitsubishi ASX consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi ASX could require 135 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mitsubishi ASX consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 960 km in combined cycle | 1160 km in combined cycle | |
| 1080 km on highway | 1270 km on highway | ||
| 810 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 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: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 19 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Outlander, Peugeot 4008 | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Jaguar XF, Land Rover Discovery Sport, Jaguar XE | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| 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 2018 2.0 engine: This engine is known for its relatively limited lifespan. In early production models, balance shaft bearings wore out quickly and started making noise. The chain-driven timing system, located on the flywheel ... More about Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2018 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.37 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.64 m | 1.65 m | |
|
Mitsubishi ASX is smaller. Mitsubishi ASX and Land Rover Range Rover Evoque are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 406 litres | 591 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1206 litres | no data | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has more luggage space. Mitsubishi ASX has 185 litres less trunk space than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi ASX is 1 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`970 | 2`490 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 14 800 | 29 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi ASX has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
| |