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 4 x 4 wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific diesel engine choice they offer. The first one has a Peugeot-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 156hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 141hp engine designed by SSangYong.

The fact that the Mitsubishi 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 suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? On the other hand, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, the Korean car offers a considerable difference of 11% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Mitsubishi does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Mitsubishi with an average rating of 4.6, and models under the SSangYong badge with 4.4 out of 5. The same official information place Outlander as average reliability-wise, and Kyron is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the Japanese car rank it on average as 4.1, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.0 out of 5.

Mitsubishi is way more agile, reaching 100km/h in 4.3 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 200 kilometers per hour, 33km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the Japanese car, averaging around 7.3 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (39 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 10% difference compared to the Korean 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 Japanese car offers significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. It all continues in the same direction, with Mitsubishi outracing its opponent in any situation possible, making it better choice for boy racers. 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. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. 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.