Ford Mondeo 1996 vs Mitsubishi Carisma 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 177 NM | 265 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.2 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Carisma is a more dynamic driving. Ford Mondeo engine produces 25 HP less power than Mitsubishi Carisma, whereas torque is 88 NM less than Mitsubishi Carisma. Due to the lower power, Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo 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 Ford Mondeo could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1290 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 910 km with real consumption | 1000 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: | 280'000 km | 420'000 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 Mitsubishi Carisma engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Escort | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Volvo V40, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Volvo S40 | |
| 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. | |||
| Mitsubishi Carisma 2001 1.9 engine: Long-lasting and fuel-efficient engine. Maintaining oil change and maintenance intervals is essential for a long engine life, as poor or untimely oil changes can result in turbine and oil pump damage, followed ... More about Mitsubishi Carisma 2001 1.9 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.56 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Ford Mondeo is larger, but slightly lower. Ford Mondeo is 8 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Carisma, 4 cm wider, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 470 litres | 460 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1290 litres | no data | |
| Ford Mondeo has 10 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 0.1 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`855 | 1`775 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | Mitsubishi Carisma has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 120 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Carisma, so Mitsubishi Carisma quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.3/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Mitsubishi Carisma has
| |