Mitsubishi Lancer 2008 vs Volvo S60 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| 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: | 143 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 178 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 8.7 seconds | |
|
Volvo S60 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Lancer engine produces 27 HP less power than Volvo S60, whereas torque is 52 NM less than Volvo S60. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Lancer reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 8.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Lancer is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Lancer consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S60, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Lancer over 15,000 km in a year you can save 195 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Lancer consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi ASX | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S40, Volvo V50, Volvo S70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo S60 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo S60 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. | |||
| Volvo S60 2004 2.4 engine: The strengths of this engine lie in its durable components, long lifespan, reliability in everyday use, and substantial power reserves.
However, there are notable weaknesses. Early models were equipped ... More about Volvo S60 2004 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.57 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.49 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Lancer is smaller, but higher. Mitsubishi Lancer is 1 cm shorter than the Volvo S60, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Lancer is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 400 litres | 424 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1034 litres | |
|
Volvo S60 has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Lancer has 24 litres less trunk space than the Volvo S60. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Lancer is 1 metres less than that of the Volvo S60, which means Mitsubishi Lancer can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`850 | 1`980 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 2800 | 2600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 8.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Lancer has
|
Volvo S60 has
| |