Mitsubishi Outlander 2012 vs Volvo XC60 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 175 HP | |
| Torque: | 360 NM | 420 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.7 seconds | 10.2 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 25 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 60 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 1.1 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 165 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1030 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 1170 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 1010 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
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. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 145 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 350 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 | 11.9 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): | no data | 2`505 | |
| 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
| |