Mitsubishi Outlander 2013 vs Volvo XC60 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 166 HP | 203 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 37 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 80 NM less than Volvo XC60. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 8.5 | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Outlander could require 30 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| Volvo XC60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 216 mm (8.5 inches) | 230 mm (9.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Volvo XC60 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 Volvo XC60 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from eleven 4x4 versions of Volvo XC60 2009 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 1 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo V60 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.71 m | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander is 3 cm longer than the Volvo XC60, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 292 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 292 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1792 litres | 1455 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 337 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 1.3 metres less than that of the Volvo XC60, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`175 | 2`500 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Outlander has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 9200 | 9000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |