Mitsubishi Outlander 2015 vs Audi Q5 2020
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 204 HP | |
| Torque: | 360 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.6 seconds | 7.6 seconds | |
|
Audi Q5 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 54 HP less power than Audi Q5, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Audi Q5. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Audi Q5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Outlander could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1030 km in combined cycle | 1200 km in combined cycle | |
| 1150 km on highway | 1300 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 900 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi Q5 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 | 440'000 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: | 14 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi L 200, Mitsubishi ASX | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Audi A6, Audi A7 | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Audi Q5 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 4.68 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.66 m | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander is 1 cm longer than the Audi Q5, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 128 litres | 520 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1608 litres | 1520 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Outlander has 392 litres less trunk space than the Audi Q5. 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 Mitsubishi Outlander (by 88 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 1.2 metres less than that of the Audi Q5, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`510 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 18 200 | 47 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Audi Q5 has
| |