Mitsubishi Lancer 2004 vs Honda Accord 2003
| Body: | Sedan | Estate car / wagon | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The wagon generally has more cargo space due to a larger trunk door opening, a roof that extends as far back as possible, and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into cargo space. Sedans tend to be quieter than wagons due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 98 HP | 155 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Honda Accord is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Lancer engine produces 57 HP less power than Honda Accord, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Honda Accord. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Lancer reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 8.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.3 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Lancer is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Lancer consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Lancer over 15,000 km in a year you can save 240 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Lancer consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| Honda Accord gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Space Star | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda CR-V, Honda FR-V, Honda Stream | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mitsubishi Lancer 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. | |||
| Honda Accord 2003 2.0 engine: In 2001, Honda introduced the K-series engine lineup, featuring an aluminum block with an open-deck design and cast-iron cylinder liners. It utilizes a port fuel injection system, a 16-valve aluminum cylinder head without hydraulic lifters, individual ignition coils, a VTC cam ... More about Honda Accord 2003 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.75 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Lancer is smaller. Mitsubishi Lancer is 27 cm shorter than the Honda Accord, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Lancer is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 572 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1657 litres | |
|
Honda Accord has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Lancer has 142 litres less trunk space than the Honda Accord. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`750 | 2`030 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.7/10 | 8.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Lancer has
|
Honda Accord has
| |