Suzuki Grand Vitara 2005 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 201 HP | |
| Torque: | 183 NM | 303 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.6 seconds | 7.7 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is a more dynamic driving. Suzuki Grand Vitara engine produces 61 HP less power than Mitsubishi Outlander, whereas torque is 120 NM less than Mitsubishi Outlander. Due to the lower power, Suzuki Grand Vitara reaches 100 km/h speed 5.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.4 | 10.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.1 l/100km | 11.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Suzuki Grand Vitara consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means that by driving the Suzuki Grand Vitara over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Suzuki Grand Vitara consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 66 litres | 59 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 580 km in combined cycle | |
| 540 km with real consumption | 520 km with real consumption | ||
| Suzuki Grand Vitara gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 27 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Suzuki SX4 | Used also on Mitsubishi Eclipse | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Suzuki Grand Vitara might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mitsubishi Outlander 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: | 4.47 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.70 m | 1.62 m | |
| Suzuki Grand Vitara is 7 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Outlander, 6 cm wider, while the height of Suzuki Grand Vitara is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 398 litres | 402 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1951 litres | 1691 litres | |
| Suzuki Grand Vitara has 4 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Outlander. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Suzuki Grand Vitara (by 260 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Suzuki Grand Vitara is 0.4 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means Suzuki Grand Vitara can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`070 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Suzuki Grand Vitara has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Outlander has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Suzuki Grand Vitara, so Suzuki Grand Vitara quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Suzuki Grand Vitara has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |