Mitsubishi Pajero 2006 vs Volvo XC90 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.2 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 373 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14 seconds | 12 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Pajero engine produces 7 HP more power than Volvo XC90, whereas torque is 33 NM more than Volvo XC90. Despite the higher power, Mitsubishi Pajero reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.6 | 9.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.9 l/100km | 9.3 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Pajero consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Pajero could require 225 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Pajero consumes 2.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 90 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 1120 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Pajero gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Volvo XC90 2002 2.4 engine: These diesel engines are frequently affected by intake manifold swirl flap seizures. This issue often leads to airflow disruptions and rough engine operation.
The actuator for the turbocharger, which relies ... More about Volvo XC90 2002 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.90 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.87 m | 1.74 m | |
| Mitsubishi Pajero is 10 cm longer than the Volvo XC90, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Pajero is 13 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 215 litres | 249 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1790 litres | 2404 litres | |
|
Volvo XC90 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Pajero has 34 litres less trunk space than the Volvo XC90. This could mean that the Mitsubishi Pajero uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo XC90 (by 614 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Pajero is 1.3 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 (kg): | 3`300 | 2`735 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Average price (€): | 11 200 | 3400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Pajero has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |