Mitsubishi Carisma 1997 vs Honda Accord 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 174 NM | 175 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma engine produces 11 HP less power than Honda Accord, whereas torque is 1 NM less than Honda Accord. Despite less power, Mitsubishi Carisma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 8.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 8.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Carisma over 15,000 km in a year you can save 255 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 890 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 1110 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 810 km with real consumption | 730 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: | 350'000 km | 440'000 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: | 23 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volvo V40, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Galant | Used only for this car | |
| 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: | yes | no | |
| 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: | 4.48 m | 4.60 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Carisma is smaller. Mitsubishi Carisma is 12 cm shorter than the Honda Accord, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Carisma is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
660 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Carisma is 1 metres less than that of the Honda Accord, which means Mitsubishi Carisma can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`685 | 1`930 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | Mitsubishi Carisma has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Honda Accord has serious deffects in 80 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Carisma, so Mitsubishi Carisma quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Carisma has
|
Honda Accord has
| |