Mitsubishi Outlander vs Skoda Kodiaq: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data — no editorial review of this pair yet.
Mitsubishi · 2021–present
Outlander GN
- Power
- 188 kW256 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- —
- Top speed
- —
- Kerb mass
- 2,179 kg
Skoda · 2023–present
Kodiaq II
- Power
- 110 kW150 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- 9.7 s
- Top speed
- 207 km/h
- Kerb mass
- 1,661 kg
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
Categories won: Outlander GN 3 Kodiaq II 0
- City Too close to call Length: 4,709 mm vs 4,758 mm
- Performance Outlander GN Power per tonne: 86 kW/t vs 66 kW/t
- Running costs Outlander GN Fuel per year: €210 vs €1,580 (estimated)
- Off-road Outlander GN Drive and body: All-wheel drive · SUV vs Front-wheel drive · SUV
In plain words
Mitsubishi Outlander has more power: 188 kW (256 PS) against 110 kW (150 PS) for Skoda Kodiaq. Skoda Kodiaq is 49 mm longer than Mitsubishi Outlander (4,758 mm vs 4,709 mm). Skoda Kodiaq is lighter by 518 kg (1,661 kg vs 2,179 kg). At 15,000 km a year, fuel would cost about €210 (Mitsubishi Outlander), €1,580 (Skoda Kodiaq) (estimated). Mitsubishi Outlander is the older design (from 2001); Skoda Kodiaq arrived in 2016. On the catalog figures, the Mitsubishi Outlander is the pick for performance, running costs and off-road. Our catalog has no 0–100 km/h for the Mitsubishi Outlander yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Race Stats side by side
Each figure is a 0–100 score from the catalog numbers, the same as on the 1CARS Race cards. PI is the overall performance index (100–999) and its class D–S.
| Stat | Outlander GN | Kodiaq II |
|---|---|---|
| PI | C · 495 | C · 441 |
| Power | 45 | 37 |
| Grip | 40 | 30 |
| Handling | 38 | 50 |
| Top speed | 47 | 41 |
| Launch | 49 | 33 |
Grip and handling are estimates from drive type, weight, height and body (hover a figure to see where it comes from). 1CARS Race
Who wins a race?
Quarter-mile (402 m) drag from a standing start, dry road, no reaction time — the 1CARS Race physics on the catalog figures of these versions.
- 1 Outlander GNOutlander GN · 2.4 PHEV · plug-in hybrid · 188 kW (256 PS) 14.93 sat 145 km/h
- 2 Kodiaq IIKodiaq II · 1.5 TSI mHEV · petrol · 110 kW (150 PS) 16.92 sat 130 km/h · +1.99 s
Size and weight
Side view to scale, all cars from the front bumper.
| Outlander GN | Kodiaq II | |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4,709 mm185.4 in † | 4,758 mm187.3 in +49 mm +1.9 in +1.0% |
| Width | 1,897 mm74.7 in † | 1,864 mm73.4 in −33 mm −1.3 in −1.7% |
| Height | 1,745 mm68.7 in † | 1,679 mm66.1 in −66 mm −2.6 in −3.8% |
| Wheelbase | 2,705 mm106.5 in † | 2,789 mm109.8 in +84 mm +3.3 in +3.1% |
| Kerb weight | 2,179 kg4,804 lb | 1,661 kg3,662 lb −518 kg −1,142 lb −23.8% |
| Fits a standard garage? | Tight | Tight |
Difference vs Outlander GN (±). Garage check: a standard single garage takes a car up to about 5.0 m (16 ft 5 in) long and 1.9 m (6 ft 3 in) wide (width as listed in the catalog; some makers include the mirrors). Leave about 0.6 m (2 ft) to open the doors. † from another version of this generation.
Full specifications
| Mitsubishi Outlander | Skoda Kodiaq | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | Outlander GN · 2.4 PHEV · plug-in hybrid · 188 kW (256 PS) | Kodiaq II · 1.5 TSI mHEV · petrol · 110 kW (150 PS) |
| Production years | 2021–present | 2023–present |
| Body | SUV | SUV |
| Class | SUV / crossover | SUV / crossover |
| Country | Japan | Czech Republic |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 188 kW (256 PS) 252 hp Better | 110 kW (150 PS) 148 hp |
| Power, all versions | 60–225 kW (82–306 PS) 80–302 hp | 92–195 kW (125–265 PS) 123–261 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | 450 Nm 332 lb-ft | No data |
| 0–100 km/h Why it matters: A shorter 0–100 km/h time means quicker getaways and safer merging onto fast roads. | No data | 9.7 s |
| Top speed Why it matters: Top speed hints at how relaxed the car is at motorway speeds, even if you never reach it. | No data | 207 km/h 129 mph |
| Power per tonne | 86 kW/t 105 hp/ton calculated Better | 66 kW/t 81 hp/ton calculated |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Plug-in hybrid | Petrol |
| Engine | 2,360 cc · 4 cyl 2.4 l | No data |
| Engine code | 4B12 | No data |
| Gearbox | No data | dual-clutch |
| Drive | All-wheel drive | Front-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,709 mm 185.4 in † | 4,758 mm 187.3 in |
| Width | 1,897 mm 74.7 in † | 1,864 mm 73.4 in |
| Height | 1,745 mm 68.7 in † | 1,679 mm 66.1 in |
| Wheelbase | 2,705 mm 106.5 in † | 2,789 mm 109.8 in |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | 2,179 kg 4,804 lb | 1,661 kg 3,662 lb Better |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | No data | 910 l 32.1 cu ft |
| Fuel tank Why it matters: A larger tank means more distance between fuel stops. | No data | 55 l 14.5 gal US |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | 0.8 l/100 km 294.0 mpg US Better | 6.0 l/100 km 39.2 mpg US |
| CO₂ | 19 g/km Better | 136 g/km |
| Fuel cost per year | €210/year estimated Better | €1,580/year estimated |
| Range on a full tank | No data | 917 km 570 mi estimated |
| Electric | ||
| Battery Why it matters: A bigger battery usually gives more range, but takes longer to charge fully. | 20 kWh | No data |
| Electric range Why it matters: A longer range means fewer charging stops on long journeys. | 87 km 54 mi | No data |
| Energy use | 23.4 kWh/100 km | No data |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | No data | ★★★★★ (2024) |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (2): Body, Class.
Better marks the stronger figure — only for measurable specs (power, torque, 0–100 km/h, consumption, boot, weight).
Estimated at 15,000 km a year with fuel at €1.75/l petrol. † from another version of this generation.