Mitsubishi Outlander 2003 vs Nissan X-Trail 2001
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Mitsubishi Outlander) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Nissan X-Trail) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 160 HP | 114 HP | |
| Torque: | 213 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 13.7 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 46 HP more power than Nissan X-Trail, but torque is 57 NM less than Nissan X-Trail. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.8 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan X-Trail is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 2.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Outlander could require 435 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 2.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 580 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 540 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan X-Trail gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.54 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.68 m | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander is 3 cm longer than the Nissan X-Trail, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 402 litres | 410 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1705 litres | 1841 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Outlander has 8 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 136 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 0.4 metres more than that of the Nissan X-Trail, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`070 | 2`050 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |