Ford Mondeo 1996 vs Mitsubishi Carisma 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 131 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 176 NM | 174 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Ford Mondeo is more dynamic to drive. Ford Mondeo engine produces 6 HP more power than Mitsubishi Carisma, whereas torque is 2 NM more than Mitsubishi Carisma. Thanks to more power Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.1 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 1.4 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 210 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 890 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 1110 km on highway | ||
| 730 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: | 480'000 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 Ford Mondeo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 23 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Scorpio | 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: | 4.56 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: | 460 litres | 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): | 1`815 | 1`685 | |
| 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
| |