Volvo XC60 2013 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Petrol | 2.3 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 304 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 440 NM | 360 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.3 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo XC60 engine produces 154 HP more power than Mitsubishi Outlander, whereas torque is 80 NM more than Mitsubishi Outlander. Thanks to more power Volvo XC60 reaches 100 km/h speed 4.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.7 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.1 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC60 consumes 4.9 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 735 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC60 consumes 3.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 1030 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 1170 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 750 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) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 390'000 km | 480'000 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 Outlander engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC70, Volvo V60 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi L 200, Mitsubishi ASX | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| 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: | 4.64 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.68 m | |
| Volvo XC60 is 1 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Outlander, 9 cm wider, while the height of Volvo XC60 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 495 litres | 145 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1455 litres | 986 litres | |
|
Volvo XC60 has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Volvo XC60 has 350 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Outlander. The Mitsubishi Outlander 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 XC60 (by 469 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.7 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC60 is 1.1 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 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | below average | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Outlander has serious deffects in 80 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 16 000 | 10 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC60 has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |