Volvo XC60 2008 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 285 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 232 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.5 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo XC60 engine produces 115 HP more power than Mitsubishi Outlander, whereas torque is 168 NM more than Mitsubishi Outlander. Thanks to more power Volvo XC60 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.9 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.1 l/100km | 10.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC60 consumes 3.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo XC60 could require 555 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC60 consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 580 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 780 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 570 km with real consumption | 580 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Outlander gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 230 mm (9.1 inches) | 215 mm (8.5 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Volvo XC60 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 3 years | 19 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volvo S80 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Peugeot 4007, Citroen C-Crosser | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Outlander might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volvo XC60 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: | 4.63 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.68 m | |
| Volvo XC60 is 4 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Outlander, 9 cm wider, while the height of Volvo XC60 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 495 litres | 774 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1455 litres | 1691 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has more luggage space. Volvo XC60 has 279 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Outlander. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 236 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC60 is 1.3 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means Volvo XC60 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`440 | 2`290 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Outlander has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 9000 | 5800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC60 has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |