Mitsubishi ASX SUV Facelifting 1.8 150HP manual 4x4 vs Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual

Source: wikipedia.org M 93 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany

Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual

Source: wikipedia.org Robert Basic Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

8 reasons for

Mitsubishi ASX SUV Facelifting, model available from 2010.
It has 1.8 150HP diesel engine produced from 2013.
Drive 4x4 has manual, 6 speed gearbox.

6 reasons for

Ford Ecosport II, model available from 2013.
It has 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP petrol engine produced from 2013.
Drive on the front axle has manual, 5 speed gearbox.

Source: wikipedia.org Robert Basic Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

8 reasons for Mitsubishi ASX SUV Facelifting 1.8 150KM manual 4x4 in comparison to Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual

Reasons for

135

Maximal power

150 > 125 hp

The horsepower of the Mitsubishi ASX SUV Facelifting is 20 percent bigger in relation to the Ford. Because the difference is not big this should not affect the car performance in a noticeable way.

Add a comment

Acceleration 0-100 km/h

10 > 12.7 s

A little difference amounts to 21 percent indicates that the Ford Ecosport II is insensibly beaten here. In the „small off-road 4x4” class, to which the Ford is assigned, the average acceleration is 10.9 s and is by 1.8 s faster than acceleration of Ford’s vehicle.

Add a comment

Top speed

198 > 180 km/h

The maximum speed possible to be reached by the Mitsubishi ASX SUV Facelifting is greater compared with of the Ford Ecosport II by 18 kilometers per hour, which allows the Mitsubishi to overcome faster long distance of highway. The difference at the level of 10 percent is little and will not be a very noticable in everyday driving.

Add a comment

Wheelbase

2,676 > 2,521 mm

The wheelbase of a car equals the distance between its front and rear wheels. The wheelbase significantly affects the driving due to better car's weight distribution. Mitsubishi ASX SUV Facelifting has 6 % longer wheelbase distance in comparison to Ford Ecosport II. Wheelbase dimensions are crucial to the stability and steering. Thus, the mass of Mitsubishi ASX SUV Facelifting should be better distributed and driving should be easier and safer.

Add a comment

Cylinders

4 > 3

Add a comment

Number of gears

6 > 5 gears

The Mitsubishi have a higher gear count in relation to the Ford Ecosport II which means that Mitsubishi would have faster acceleration and lesser fuel consumption. But the difference is not big and if you are not drag racing at a timed event you would not observe the difference.

Add a comment

Engine capacity

1,797 > 1,000 cc

The engine size of the Mitsubishi is by 797 cc larger when compared to the Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual. For this reason the Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual will consume less fuel, however, the engine of the Mitsubishi ASX will be of better performance, working more smoothly and more durable.

Add a comment

Length

4,296 > 4,244 mm

The Mitsubishi ASX is 1 percent longer in comparison to the Ford. The length of the vehicle plays a role when it comes to driving comfort and room in the boot. The Mitsubishi ASX preasumbly will be offering to it's users more room for legs. At the same time the Mitsubishi will be better driven ,however, the Ford Ecosport II will be a slightly easier to park due to shorter length of the body.

Add a comment

Reasons for

112

Average consumption

5.3 > 5.9 l

The Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual consumes 10 % fewer in the mixed cycle in relation to the Mitsubishi ASX SUV Facelifting. The difference in the amount of 10 percent is not perceptible. Nevertheless in the long term it would give a real savings.

Add a comment

Urban consumption

6.8 > 7 l

The Ford Ecosport II consumes 3 % less fuel running around the town in relation to the Mitsubishi ASX SUV Facelifting. The Ford Ecosport II, that comes from compact SUV class, burns up 2.8 l fewer gasoline. Interesting is that average fuel consumption in the urban for the compact SUV segment equals to 9.6 l, whereas the Ford Ecosport II consumes by 29 % less amount of fuel than the average.

Add a comment

Extra-urban consumption

4.7 > 4.9 l

Add a comment

Width

2,057 > 1,770 mm

distance between left and right side of a car directly influences on the amount of space for passengers and also stability during driving. The width of the Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual is larger only by 16 percent than the Mitsubishi ASX and is not really worth considering. The average for the „compact SUV” class equals to 1,797 millimeters and is by 260 millimeters smaller than the same attribute of the Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual.

Add a comment

Model release date

2013 > 2010

The difference in release date between these two cars is only 3 years, however, new technologies for vehicles are appearing at a fast pace and for that reason the Ford Ecosport II may feature more modern technologies thanks to which everyday usage of it may be more comfortable.

Add a comment

Height

1,696 > 1,615 mm

The higher a car is, the better is the comfort of getting in to it and greater capacity of carrying big amount of luggage to it. The difference between these two cars at the level of 5 % in favor of the Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual is little and does not matter much.

Add a comment