Mitsubishi Outlander CU vs Nissan X-Trail T30: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Mitsubishi · 2001–2006
Outlander CU
- Power
- 100 kW136 PS
- Kerb mass
- 1,515 kg
Nissan · 2000–2007
X-Trail T30
- Power
- 100 kW136 PS
- Kerb mass
- -
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
- Family Too close to call Boot: 402 l vs 410 l
- City Too close to call Length: 4,550 mm vs 4,510 mm
- Off-road Too close to call Drive and body: Four-wheel drive (4×4) · SUV vs Four-wheel drive (4×4) · SUV
In plain words
Mitsubishi Outlander CU is 40 mm longer than Nissan X-Trail T30 (4,550 mm vs 4,510 mm). Nissan X-Trail T30 has the bigger boot: 410 l against 402 l. Nissan X-Trail T30 is the older design (from 2000); Mitsubishi Outlander CU arrived in 2001. Our catalog has no kerb mass for the Nissan X-Trail T30 yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Size and weight
| Outlander CU | X-Trail T30 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4,550 mm179.1 in | 4,510 mm177.6 in −40 mm −1.6 in −0.9% |
| Width | 1,750 mm68.9 in | 1,765 mm69.5 in +15 mm +0.6 in +0.9% |
| Wheelbase | 2,625 mm103.3 in | 2,625 mm103.3 in |
| Boot | 402 l14.2 cu ft | 410 l14.5 cu ft +8 l +0.3 cu ft +2.0% |
| Fits a standard garage? | Yes | Yes |
Difference vs Outlander CU (±). 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.
Full specifications
| Mitsubishi Outlander CU | Nissan X-Trail T30 | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 2.0 4G63 · 100 kW (136 PS) | 2.2 dCi diesel · 100 kW (136 PS) |
| Production years | 2001–2006 | 2000–2007 |
| Body | SUV | SUV |
| Class | SUV / crossover | SUV / crossover |
| Country | Japan | Japan |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 100 kW (136 PS) 134 hp | 100 kW (136 PS) 134 hp |
| Power, all versions | 100–149 kW (136–203 PS) 134–200 hp | 84–206 kW (114–280 PS) 113–276 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | 176 Nm 130 lb-ft | 314 Nm 232 lb-ft Better |
| Power per tonne | 66 kW/t 80 hp/ton calculated | No data |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Petrol | Diesel |
| Gearbox | manual | 6-speed manual |
| Drive | Four-wheel drive (4×4) | Four-wheel drive (4×4) |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,550 mm 179.1 in | 4,510 mm 177.6 in |
| Width | 1,750 mm 68.9 in | 1,765 mm 69.5 in |
| Height | 1,670 mm 65.7 in | No data |
| Wheelbase | 2,625 mm 103.3 in | 2,625 mm 103.3 in |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | 1,515 kg 3,340 lb | No data |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | 402 l 14.2 cu ft | 410 l 14.5 cu ft |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | No data | 9.2 l/100 km 25.6 mpg US |
| Fuel cost per year | No data | €2,280/year estimated |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | No data | ★★★★☆ (2002) |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (6): Body, Class, Country, Power, Drive, Wheelbase.
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 €1.65/l diesel.