Mitsubishi Outlander 2009 vs Citroen C-Crosser 2007
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 156 HP | |
| Torque: | 232 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 14 HP more power than Citroen C-Crosser, but torque is 148 NM less than Citroen C-Crosser. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.2 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen C-Crosser is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C-Crosser, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Outlander could require 150 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C-Crosser. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen C-Crosser gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 215 mm (8.5 inches) | 174 mm (6.9 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mitsubishi Outlander 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 19 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Peugeot 4007, Citroen C-Crosser | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi Outlander, Peugeot 4007 | |
| 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 Citroen C-Crosser 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: | 4.67 m | 4.65 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.72 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mitsubishi Outlander is 2 cm longer than the Citroen C-Crosser, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 5 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 774 litres | 184 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 184 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 774 litres | 441 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1691 litres | 1686 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Mitsubishi Outlander has more luggage space (by 333 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 5 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 1.4 metres less than that of the Citroen C-Crosser, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`290 | 2`410 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 5800 | 6400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Citroen C-Crosser has
| |