Mitsubishi Outlander 2012 vs Nissan X-Trail 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 173 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 360 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 23 HP less power than Nissan X-Trail, but torque is 20 NM more than Nissan X-Trail. Despite less power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 7.7 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 Nissan X-Trail, 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 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1110 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
| 840 km with real consumption | 840 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Outlander gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi L 200, Mitsubishi ASX | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Opel Vivaro | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan X-Trail might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Nissan X-Trail 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. | |||
| Nissan X-Trail 2010 2.0 engine: The engine has a good power to fuel consumption ratio and, with careful maintenance, a long service life. The most common problems with these engines are with the fuel injection system and lubrication. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.70 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mitsubishi Outlander is 2 cm longer than the Nissan X-Trail, 1 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 479 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
986 litres | 1773 litres | |
|
Nissan X-Trail has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Outlander has 259 litres less trunk space than the Nissan X-Trail. 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 Nissan X-Trail (by 787 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 1 metres less than that of the Nissan X-Trail, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`170 | 2`170 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 9200 | 8600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |