Mitsubishi Outlander 2012 vs Volvo XC60 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 203 HP | |
| Torque: | 195 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 53 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 105 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 8.0 | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 1.2 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 180 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 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. | |||
| 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 | no data | |
| 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`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 (€): | 10 000 | 9400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |