Honda Accord 2001 vs Mitsubishi Carisma 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 175 NM | 174 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
| Honda Accord engine produces 11 HP more power than Mitsubishi Carisma, whereas torque is 1 NM more than Mitsubishi Carisma. Despite the higher power, Honda Accord reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.8 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda Accord consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Honda Accord could require 285 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda Accord consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 890 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 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: | 440'000 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 Honda Accord engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 23 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mitsubishi Carisma 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: | 4.60 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Honda Accord is larger. Honda Accord is 12 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Carisma, 4 cm wider, while the height of Honda Accord is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 660 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda Accord is 1 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Carisma, which means Honda Accord can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | no data | 1`685 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Honda Accord has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mitsubishi Carisma, so Honda Accord quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda Accord has
|
Mitsubishi Carisma has
| |