Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the suv segment and utilize the same 5-door suv body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific diesel engine choice they offer. The first one has a Volvo-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 5-cylinder, 20-valves 163hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 150hp engine designed by Mitsubishi.

The fact that the Mitsubishi got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, puts it sky-high safety-wise, in my eyes at least. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very 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 10% 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 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. Unfortunatelly, I don't have enough insight that would allow me to comment in more details on the specific models level. That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the Swedish car rank it on average as 4.9, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 5.0 out of 5.

Mitsubishi is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.5 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 200 kilometers per hour, 5km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 5.1 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (56 mpg), in combined cycle.

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 Japanese car beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. It all continues in the same direction, with Mitsubishi offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but 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. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.