Skoda Octavia II Estate 1.6 TDI CR DPF 105HP manual 4x4 vs Mitsubishi Lancer VI Estate 1.6 GLXi 16V 113HP manual

Skoda Octavia II Estate 1.6 TDI CR DPF 105HP manual 4x4

Source: wikipedia.org Thomas doerfer Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

22 reasons for

Skoda Octavia II Estate, model available from 2004 to 2013.
It has 1.6 TDI CR DPF 105HP diesel engine produced from 2005 to 2012.
Drive on the front axle has manual, 5 speed gearbox.

5 reasons for

Mitsubishi Lancer VI Estate, model available from 1992 to 1996.
It has 1.6 GLXi 16V 113HP petrol engine produced from 1992 to 1996.
Drive on the front axle has manual, 5 speed gearbox.

Mitsubishi Lancer VI Estate 1.6 GLXi 16V 113HP manual
Skoda

22 reasons for Skoda Octavia II Kombi 1.6 TDI CR DPF 105KM manual 4x4 in comparison to Mitsubishi Lancer VI Estate 1.6 GLXi 16V 113HP manual

Reasons for
112

Average consumption

4.3 > 7.5 l
The fuel economy is considerably to Skoda Octavia II Estate's advantage. This vehicle consumes 3.2 l fewer diesel in the mixed cycle in relation to the Mitsubishi. Bear in mind that average fuel consumption in the combined cycle for the compact class, in which the Skoda Octavia II is classified, is 6.8 l whereas the Skoda uses by 37 % less fuel than the average.
38

Trunk capacity

579 > 471 l
The Skoda Octavia II Estate features 108 liters larger boot compared with the Mitsubishi. Such a difference is relevant and it will matters in terms of the comfort of the car’s usage. At the same time that the Skoda Octavia II Estate 1.6 TDI CR DPF 105HP manual 4x4 has 186 liters bigger trunk size than the average in its class. Bigger trunk will be useful during family traveling as well as while daily driving.
33

Trunk capacity with seats down

1,618 > 738 l
33

Top speed

190 > 185 km/h
The top velocity possible to be reached by the ​​Skoda Octavia II Estate is greater in comparison to the Mitsubishi Lancer VI Estate by 3, which allows the Skoda to cover faster large distance of highway. The difference at the level of 3 percent is small and will be insignificant in everyday driving.
22

Width

1,766 > 1,690 mm
The width of the car influences on passanger's inner room as well as stability of driving. The Skoda Octavia II Estate is 4 percent wider than the Mitsubishi Lancer VI Estate. It is clearly felt by those sitting in front, who have more room for their elbows.
19

Range

1,250 > 685 km
19

Fuel tank

55 > 49 l
The winner of selected cars in the aspect of fuel tank capacity is Skoda Octavia II Estate 1.6 TDI CR DPF 105HP manual 4x4 that can hold by 12 % more oil in comparison to the Mitsubishi Lancer VI Estate 1.6 GLXi 16V 113HP manual.
15

Wheelbase

2,584 > 2,500 mm
Skoda Octavia II Estate has 84 mm longer wheelbase in relation to the Mitsubishi Lancer VI Estate. A longer wheelbase provides more stable and comfortable ride, especially at higher speeds. It also gives more storage space. But, cars with a longer wheelbase will not be as maneuverable as those with a shorter length between its axles.
8

Engine capacity

1,599 > 1,596 cc
The Skoda Octavia II Estate has by 3 cc greater cubic capacity in relation to the Mitsubishi Lancer VI Estate. This play a little role as far as acceleration is concerned, as both figures are quite simmilar.
8

Maximum load capacity

585 > 565 kg
6

Length

4,572 > 4,270 mm
The Skoda Octavia II Estate is 302 mm longer than the Mitsubishi Lancer VI. Long cars are more spacious and also have plenty of trunk space. While the Skoda occurs to be better pick for families or those who appreciate convenient driving, the Mitsubishi Lancer VI may be more appropriate to singles because it will not make problems with parking and will have smaller turning radius.
4

Rear track

1,531 > 1,420 mm
1

Model release date

2004 > 1992
Production of the older vehicle started 12 years prior to its rival hence it seems to be right to assume that this vehicle has significantly less advanced solutions used.
1

Height

1,468 > 1,420 mm
The higher a car is, the the more convenient is a getting in to it and greater possibility of loading massive amount of stuff to it. The difference between these two cars of 48 mm to the advantage of the Skoda Octavia II Estate is not big and does not matter much.
1

Tire width

195 > 175 mm
0

Maximal power RPM

4,400 > 6,000 revolutions/minute
0

Payload

1,953 > 1,600 kg
0

Front track

1,538 > 1,450 mm
0

End of model sale

2013 > 1996
0

Tire diameter

15 > 13 ″
0

Tire profile

65 > 70 %
0

Curb weight

1,369 > 1,032 kg

Mitsubishi

5 reasons for Mitsubishi Lancer VI Kombi 1.6 GLXi 16V 113KM manual in comparison to Skoda Octavia II Estate 1.6 TDI CR DPF 105HP manual 4x4

Reasons for
135

Maximal power

113 > 105 hp
The horsepower of the Mitsubishi is 8 hp grater in comparison to the Skoda. As the difference is small it should not affect the car performance considerably.
50

Acceleration 0-100 km/h

10.2 > 11.9 s
The Skoda accelerates from 0 to 100 Km/h relatively slower than the Mitsubishi Lancer VI Estate 1.6 GLXi 16V 113HP manual. The difference at the level of 1.7 s is is slightly to the Mitsubishi Lancer VI Estate advantage, however, it should not be substantially taken into account for selecting the better one of presented cars.
9

Ground clearance

148 > 137 mm
Ground clearance is a vital factor in many important features of a vehicle. It is very important for SUV vehicles though all cars appreciate the higher suspension. The Mitsubishi Lancer VI Estate has 11 mm larger clearance when compared with the Skoda Octavia II Estate 1.6 TDI CR DPF 105HP manual 4x4. In addition to easier mobility in rough terrain, the Mitsubishi Lancer VI Estate will also be easier to overcome city obstacles like large kerbstones, for example.
0

Front overhang

824 > 917 mm
0

Rear overhang

951 > 1,074 mm

Cars specifications

Skoda Octavia II Estate 1.6 TDI CR DPF 105HP manual 4x4 Mitsubishi Lancer VI Estate 1.6 GLXi 16V 113HP manual
    Gross trailer weight 1,598 kg -
    Price range popular popular
    Model release date 2004 1992
    Facelifting no no
    Class C C
By using this site, you agree to the storage and use of cookie files. OK