Mitsubishi Outlander 2012 vs Volvo XC60 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 147 HP | 203 HP | |
| Torque: | 195 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 56 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 105 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.5 | 8.5 | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Outlander over 15,000 km in a year you can save 150 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 19 years | 1 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi ASX, Peugeot 4008 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo V60 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Outlander might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.71 m | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander is 3 cm longer than the Volvo XC60, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 591 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1455 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has more luggage capacity. Mitsubishi Outlander has 96 litres more trunk space than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 1.3 metres less than that of the Volvo XC60, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`985 | 2`500 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Outlander has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 9200 | 9000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |