We are here considering two somewhat similar cars, but we can't deny some of the obvious differences. For a start, they are not even classified under the same segment, with the Volvo being a small family car and the Mitsubishi representing large family car vehicle class. The first one has a Volvo-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 122hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 125hp engine designed by Mitsubishi.

A starting point here would be to take a look at the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests which were performed on both of the cars, 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 second 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, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, the Swedish car offers a marginal difference of 2% more metal.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that both brands display similar results in faults and breakdowns, all the models observed together. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Volvo, as well as Mitsubishi, with the same average rating of 4.6 out of 5. Independent research findings rank S40 as average reliability-wise, and Carisma is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the Swedish car rank it on average as 5.0 out of 5, exactly the same as the other one.

Mitsubishi is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.1 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 200 kilometers per hour, exactly the same as the other car does. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the Japanese car, averaging around 6.7 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (42 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 15% difference compared to the Swedish car.

Volvo 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. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! I believe that, when we take all into account, we have only one winner here - the Mitsubishi. In any case that's my personal view, built upon all the data available to me. What should decide here though is the way you feel about the two vehicles, and I hope you'll find my guidelines useful in the process. I suggest you spend two more minutes in order to find out which car, based on your needs and budget, would be picked by the virtual adviser™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.