Honda Accord 2003 vs Mitsubishi Lancer 2004
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The wagon generally has more cargo space due to a larger trunk door opening, a roof that extends as far back as possible, and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into cargo space. Sedans tend to be quieter than wagons due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 135 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 176 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
| Honda Accord engine produces 5 HP more power than Mitsubishi Lancer, whereas torque is 164 NM more than Mitsubishi Lancer. Despite the higher power, Honda Accord reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 8.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 8.6 l/100km | |
|
The Honda Accord is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda Accord consumes 2.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Lancer, which means that by driving the Honda Accord over 15,000 km in a year you can save 390 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda Accord consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Lancer. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1120 km in combined cycle | 590 km in combined cycle | |
| 1350 km on highway | 760 km on highway | ||
| 980 km with real consumption | 580 km with real consumption | ||
| Honda Accord gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 520'000 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 Lancer engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 45 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda CR-V, Honda FR-V | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mitsubishi Outlander, Mitsubishi Space Wagon | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Lancer might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mitsubishi Lancer 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. | |||
| Honda Accord 2003 2.2 engine: Honda’s first diesel engine featured an aluminum block, a variable-geometry turbocharger, second-generation Bosch Common Rail injection, 16-valve cylinder head, and a balance shaft integrated into the crankcase. The ... More about Honda Accord 2003 2.2 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.75 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Honda Accord is larger. Honda Accord is 27 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Lancer, 7 cm wider, while the height of Honda Accord is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 576 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1657 litres | no data | |
|
Honda Accord has more luggage capacity. Honda Accord has 146 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Lancer. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 8.7/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda Accord has
|
Mitsubishi Lancer has
| |