Compare two cars
Compare any two cars and get our Virtual Adviser™ opinion
Marketing
Dimensons & Outlines
Engine
Performance (manual gearbox)
Performance (automatic gearbox)
Expenses
Virtual Adviser's™ opinion
Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. For a start, they are not even classified under the same segment, with the Mitsubishi being a large family car and the Volvo representing small family car vehicle class.
SafetyThe first thing to look into here would be the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests performed on the two cars. Good thing is that both vehicles got tested, with the Volvo being a slightly better choice apparently. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. The first vehicle is a large family car and that gives it a marginal advantage over the small family car competitor, at least that's what statistics show. On the other hand, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Swedish car offers a marginal difference of 1% more metal.
ReliabilityI don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that both brands display similar results in faults and breakdowns, all the models observed together. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Mitsubishi, as well as Volvo, with the same average rating of 4.6 out of 5. The same official information place Carisma as average reliability-wise, and S40 is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as these two vehicles rank it on average as 4.9 out of 5.
Performance & Fuel economyMitsubishi is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.1 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 195 kilometers per hour, exactly the same as the other car does. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 5.4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (52 mpg), in combined cycle.
Verdict
Mitsubishi appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, the Swedish car offers significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. From there things take a different direction, with Mitsubishi offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. Fuel consumption is more or less the same. It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say Volvo. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser™, among more than 12.000 different ones in our database.