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 165hp 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, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Swedish car offers a marginal difference of 6% 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. 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. 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 4.8, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 5.0 out of 5.

Volvo is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.9 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 220 kilometers per hour, 20km/h more than the other car. 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 18% difference compared to the Swedish car.

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. It all continues in the same direction, with Volvo being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say 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. 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™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.