Mitsubishi Outlander 2013 vs Toyota RAV4 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 166 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 225 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 4 HP less power than Toyota RAV4, whereas torque is 5 NM less than Toyota RAV4. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 9.6 | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota RAV4, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Outlander over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 750 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi Outlander gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Toyota RAV4 2010: It has proactive automatic all-wheel drive and acts as front-wheel drive under normal conditions. In the event of wheel slip, torque is transferred to the rear wheels via an electronically controlled multi-plate clutch. The clutch can also be locked manually using a button on the console. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 216 mm (8.5 inches) | 190 mm (7.5 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mitsubishi Outlander can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mitsubishi Outlander version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from six 4x4 versions of Mitsubishi Outlander 2013 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 19 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Toyota Previa, Toyota Camry | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota RAV4 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Toyota RAV4 2010 2.4 engine: A fairly robust engine, easy to maintain and spare parts are readily available. Not too sensitive to fuel quality. High oil consumption and relatively short chain life (around 170 000 km). | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | no data | |
| Seats: | 7 seats | no data | |
| Trunk capacity: | 292 litres | 586 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 292 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 586 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1792 litres | 1752 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 40 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`175 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Toyota RAV4 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Outlander has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Toyota RAV4, so Toyota RAV4 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 9200 | 9400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Toyota RAV4 has
| |