Nissan X-Trail 2010 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.3 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is a more dynamic driving. Nissan X-Trail and Mitsubishi Outlander have the same engine power, but Nissan X-Trail torque is 60 NM less than Mitsubishi Outlander. Nissan X-Trail reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan X-Trail consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan X-Trail could require 150 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan X-Trail consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1160 km on highway | 1270 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 840 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Opel Vivaro | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi L 200, Mitsubishi ASX | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan X-Trail might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Nissan X-Trail 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. | |||
| Nissan X-Trail 2010 2.0 engine: The engine has a good power to fuel consumption ratio and, with careful maintenance, a long service life. The most common problems with these engines are with the fuel injection system and lubrication. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 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: | 479 litres | 220 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1773 litres | 986 litres | |
|
Nissan X-Trail has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Nissan X-Trail has 259 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Outlander. The Mitsubishi Outlander may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan X-Trail (by 787 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 (kg): | 2`170 | 2`170 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 8600 | 9200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan X-Trail has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |