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, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, the Swedish car offers a marginal difference of 1% more metal.
ReliabilityReliability 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. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Volvo, as well as Mitsubishi, with the same average rating of 4.6 out of 5. The same official information place 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 4.9 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 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
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. Fuel consumption is more or less the same. No mistake, whatever you decide here, but I'd still go for the Volvo. Nevertheless, let's not forget that people have different preferences and needs, so what really counts is your personal feel. I'm only here to help. 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.