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. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. 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, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, 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, 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. The same official information place 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 offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. 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 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. 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 thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.