Mitsubishi Outlander 2009 vs Volvo XC60 2008
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 3.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 285 HP | |
| Torque: | 232 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 7.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 115 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 168 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 11.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.2 l/100km | 12.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 3.7 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 555 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 1.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 580 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 780 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 570 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Outlander gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
| Ground clearance: | 215 mm (8.5 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 19 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Peugeot 4007, Citroen C-Crosser | Used also on Volvo S80 | |
| 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 Volvo XC60 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 | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.71 m | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander is 4 cm longer than the Volvo XC60, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 774 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1691 litres | 1455 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has more luggage capacity. Mitsubishi Outlander has 279 litres more trunk space than the Volvo XC60. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 236 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. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`290 | 2`440 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| 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 (€): | 5800 | 9000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |