Ford Mondeo 1996 vs Mitsubishi Carisma 1997
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 158 NM | 174 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.4 seconds | 12.4 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Carisma is a more dynamic driving. Ford Mondeo engine produces 9 HP less power than Mitsubishi Carisma, whereas torque is 16 NM less than Mitsubishi Carisma. Due to the lower power, Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.8 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.2 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 1.2 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 180 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 720 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. | |||
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: | no data | 460 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1290 litres | 430 litres | |
| 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): | no data | 1`685 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 35 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
| |