Mitsubishi Outlander 2012 vs Volvo XC60 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 14 HP more power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 30 NM more than Volvo XC60. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.6 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 90 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1110 km in combined cycle | 1160 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 1400 km on highway | ||
| 840 km with real consumption | 880 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.71 m | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander is 1 cm longer than the Volvo XC60, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
986 litres | 1455 litres | |
|
Volvo XC60 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Outlander has 275 litres less trunk space than the Volvo XC60. 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 Volvo XC60 (by 469 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 1.1 metres less than that of the Volvo XC60, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`170 | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Outlander has serious deffects in 80 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 9200 | 15 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |