Seat Exeo 2012 vs Mitsubishi ASX 2012
| Body: | Sedan | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.8 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.4 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Seat Exeo engine produces 20 HP more power than Mitsubishi ASX, whereas torque is 50 NM more than Mitsubishi ASX. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 5.7 | |
|
The Seat Exeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Seat Exeo consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi ASX, which means that by driving the Seat Exeo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1290 km in combined cycle | 1050 km in combined cycle | |
| 1590 km on highway | 1200 km on highway | ||
| Seat Exeo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 460'000 km | 330'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Seat Exeo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Audi A4, Seat Altea, Audi A5, Audi Q5, Seat Leon | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Seat Exeo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Seat Exeo 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: | 4.66 m | 4.30 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.63 m | |
|
Seat Exeo is larger, but lower. Seat Exeo is 37 cm longer than the Mitsubishi ASX, width is practically the same , while the height of Seat Exeo is 20 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 460 litres | 384 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1219 litres | |
|
Seat Exeo has more luggage capacity. Seat Exeo has 76 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi ASX. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Seat Exeo is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi ASX, which means Seat Exeo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`015 | 2`060 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Mitsubishi ASX has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Seat Exeo has serious deffects in 65 percent more cases than Mitsubishi ASX, so Mitsubishi ASX quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | no data | 10 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Seat Exeo has
|
Mitsubishi ASX has
| |