Mitsubishi Outlander 2015 vs Volvo XC60 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 360 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.6 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 13 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.2 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 30 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1030 km in combined cycle | 1160 km in combined cycle | |
| 1150 km on highway | 1400 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo XC60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Ground clearance: | 190 mm (7.5 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 seven 4x4 versions of Volvo XC60 2013 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.71 m | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander is 5 cm longer than the Volvo XC60, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 128 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1608 litres | 1455 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Outlander has 367 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 Mitsubishi Outlander (by 153 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 1.1 metres less than that of the Volvo XC60, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Volvo XC60 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mitsubishi Outlander, so Volvo XC60 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 16 600 | 15 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |