Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. Having both cars powered by petrol engines and utilizing the 5-door wagon body style within the same 'Large family car' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (4 x 4 for the Volvo and front in the case of the Mitsubishi). The first one has a Volvo-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 5-cylinder, 20-valves 200hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 6-cylinder, 24-valves 163hp engine designed by Mitsubishi.

The fact that the Volvo got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, offers a slight advantage, as the 4-star rating is better than none. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. Both vehicles belong to the large family car segment, which is generally a good thing safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. Furthermore, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Swedish car offers a considerable difference of 24% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears 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 with an average rating of 3.2, and models under the Mitsubishi badge with 4.6 out of 5. Independent research findings rank V70 as average reliability-wise, and Galant is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine 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.

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 215 kilometers per hour, 5km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the Japanese car, averaging around 9.5 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (30 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 11% 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 beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. From there things take a different direction, with Mitsubishi being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say Mitsubishi. 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. 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™, among more than 12.000 different ones in our database.