Mitsubishi Outlander 2012 vs Audi Q5 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 245 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 580 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 6.5 seconds | |
|
Audi Q5 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 95 HP less power than Audi Q5, whereas torque is 200 NM less than Audi Q5. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 8.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q5, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Outlander over 15,000 km in a year you can save 150 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1110 km in combined cycle | 1170 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 840 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mitsubishi Outlander engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi L 200, Mitsubishi ASX | Used also on Audi A7 | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Audi Q5 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.66 m | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander is 3 cm longer than the Audi Q5, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
986 litres | 1560 litres | |
|
Audi Q5 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Outlander has 320 litres less trunk space than the Audi Q5. This could mean that the Mitsubishi Outlander uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Audi Q5 (by 574 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 1 metres less than that of the Audi Q5, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`170 | 2`470 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Audi Q5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Outlander has serious deffects in 110 percent more cases than Audi Q5, so Audi Q5 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8200 | 14 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Audi Q5 has
| |