Garage
ENES
Car finder

Comparisons

Mitsubishi Outlander CU vs Nissan X-Trail T30: specs side by side

Report an error

Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.

Mitsubishi Outlander CU

Mitsubishi · 2001–2006

Outlander CU

Power
120 kW163 PS

All generations

Photo: Dinkun Chen / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0
Nissan X-Trail T30

Nissan · 2000–2007

X-Trail T30

Power
100 kW136 PS

All generations

Photo: Vauxford / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0
Add a third car

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

In plain words

Mitsubishi Outlander CU has more power: 120 kW (163 PS) against 100 kW (136 PS) for Nissan X-Trail T30. 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.

Size and weight

Outlander CUX-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? YesYes

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. † from another version of this generation.

Full specifications

Mitsubishi Outlander CUNissan X-Trail T30
General
Version 2.4 4G69 SOHC MIVEC · 120 kW (163 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. 120 kW (163 PS) 161 hp Better 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. 220 Nm 162 lb-ft 314 Nm 232 lb-ft Better
Engine and transmission
Fuel Petrol Diesel
Gearbox No data 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
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)

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. † from another version of this generation.

Photo credits