Mitsubishi L 200 1996 vs Mitsubishi L 200 2006
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Mitsubishi L 200 1996 is available with rear wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive, while Mitsubishi L 200 2006 can be equipped only with four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Mitsubishi L 200 1996 also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 2.0 - 2.5 (petrol, diesel) | 2.5 (diesel) | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 87 - 132 HP | 136 - 168 HP | |
| Torque: | 154 - 240 NM | 314 - 402 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 23.7 seconds | 14.6 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.7 | 8.6 - 9.5 | |
|
On average, Mitsubishi L 200 1996 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi L 200 2006. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 5.08 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.63 m | 1.78 m | |
|
Mitsubishi L 200 1996 is smaller. Mitsubishi L 200 1996 is 43 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi L 200 2006, 14 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi L 200 1996 is 15 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`690 | ~ 2`870 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4800 | 8600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi L 200 has
|
Mitsubishi L 200 has
| |