Mitsubishi Pajero 2006 vs Volvo XC90 2006
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Mitsubishi Pajero is available with rear wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive, while Volvo XC90 can be equipped with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Mitsubishi Pajero also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 2.5 - 3.8 | 2.4 - 4.4 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 - 247 HP | 163 - 315 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 - 381 NM | 320 - 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 - 17.1 seconds | 7.3 - 12 seconds | |
| In general, Volvo XC90 are available with more powerful and dynamic engines than Mitsubishi Pajero. Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 - 13.4 | 8.2 - 13.5 | |
|
Mitsubishi Pajero petrol engines consumes on average 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than Volvo XC90. On average, Mitsubishi Pajero equipped with diesel engines consume 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.37 m | 4.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.91 m | |
| Height: | 1.85 m | 1.77 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Pajero is smaller, but higher. Mitsubishi Pajero is 44 cm shorter than the Volvo XC90, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Pajero is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 415 litres | 249 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1790 litres | 1837 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, The Volvo XC90 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo XC90 (by 47 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 12.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Pajero is 1.9 metres less than that of the Volvo XC90, which means Mitsubishi Pajero can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | ~ 2`694 kg | ~ 2`735 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 2`218 kg | ~ 2`080 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 476 kg | ~ 655 kg | |
| Mitsubishi Pajero load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 38 procentiem less than Volvo XC90. Therefore, Volvo XC90 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Average price (€): | 12 400 | 7600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.0/10 | 8.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Pajero has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |