Nissan X-Trail 2010 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2012
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 2.0 - 2.5 (petrol, diesel) | 2.0 - 3.0 (petrol, diesel, hybrid) | |
| Both cars are available with petrol and diesel engines. Mitsubishi Outlander is available also with hybrid engines. Hybrid engines offer superior fuel efficiency and reduced emissions compared to conventional engine types. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 - 173 HP | 121 - 230 HP | |
| Torque: | 233 - 360 NM | 190 - 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 - 12.5 seconds | 8.7 - 12 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 - 9.6 | 1.9 - 8.9 | |
|
Nissan X-Trail petrol engines consumes on average 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than Mitsubishi Outlander. On average, Nissan X-Trail equipped with diesel engines consume 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 210 mm (8.3 inches) | 190 - 216 mm (7.5 - 8.5 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Nissan X-Trail 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.63 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.70 m | 1.68 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Nissan X-Trail is 2 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Outlander, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan X-Trail is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 603 litres | 771 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1773 litres | 1792 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has more luggage space. Nissan X-Trail has 168 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Outlander. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 19 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan X-Trail is 1 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means Nissan X-Trail can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | ~ 2`146 kg | ~ 2`159 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 1`622 kg | ~ 1`573 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 524 kg | ~ 586 kg | |
| Nissan X-Trail load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 12 procentiem less than Mitsubishi Outlander. Therefore, Mitsubishi Outlander is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 7000 | 8000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan X-Trail has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |