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 Volvo being a small family car and the Mitsubishi representing large 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. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. 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, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Swedish car offers a marginal difference of 2% more metal.
ReliabilityManufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that both brands display similar results in faults and breakdowns, at least on all of the models level. These are the results of an independent reasearch, while our visitors describe reliability of Volvo, as well as Mitsubishi, with the same average rating of 4.6 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed S40 as average reliability-wise, and Carisma is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as these two vehicles rank it on average as 5.0 out of 5.
Performance & Fuel economyMitsubishi 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.
Verdict
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. 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. In case you have two minutes to spare I invite you to define your needs, desires and budget and see which car would be chosen by the virtual adviser™, among more than 12.000 different ones in our database.