Audi A3 1996 vs Mitsubishi Carisma 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 174 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Carisma is a more dynamic driving. Audi A3 engine produces 25 HP less power than Mitsubishi Carisma, whereas torque is 29 NM less than Mitsubishi Carisma. Due to the lower power, Audi A3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Audi A3 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Audi A3 could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi A3 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 890 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 1110 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Carisma gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 350'000 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 Audi A3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 1 years | 23 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Seat Leon, Seat Toledo, Seat Ibiza | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volvo V40, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Galant | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Carisma might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.15 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.40 m | |
| Audi A3 is 33 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Carisma, 3 cm wider, while the height of Audi A3 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1110 litres | 660 litres | |
| Audi A3 has 80 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Carisma. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Audi A3 (by 450 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Audi A3 is 0.5 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Carisma, which means Audi A3 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`600 | 1`685 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Mitsubishi Carisma has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Audi A3 has serious deffects in 125 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Carisma, so Mitsubishi Carisma quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi A3 has
|
Mitsubishi Carisma has
| |