Mitsubishi Outlander 2003 vs Subaru Forester 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 160 HP | 210 HP | |
| Torque: | 213 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 6.3 seconds | |
|
Subaru Forester is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 50 HP less power than Subaru Forester, whereas torque is 107 NM less than Subaru Forester. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 3.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.8 | 11.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.5 l/100km | 11.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Subaru Forester, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Outlander over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Subaru Forester. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 540 km in combined cycle | |
| 750 km on highway | 680 km on highway | ||
| 620 km with real consumption | 530 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Outlander gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 300'000 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: | 21 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Galant, Mitsubishi Grandis, Mitsubishi Eclipse | Used only for this car | |
| 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: | 4.54 m | 4.45 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.58 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is larger. Mitsubishi Outlander is 9 cm longer than the Subaru Forester, 1 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 402 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1705 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 0.8 metres more than that of the Subaru Forester, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`070 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Subaru Forester has
| |