Nissan X-Trail T31 vs Mitsubishi Outlander CW: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Nissan · 2007–2013
X-Trail T31
- Power
- 127 kW173 PS
Mitsubishi · 2005–2012
Outlander CW
- Power
- 115 kW156 PS
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
- City X-Trail T31 Length: 4,636 mm vs 4,765 mm
In plain words
Nissan X-Trail T31 has more power: 127 kW (173 PS) against 115 kW (156 PS) for Mitsubishi Outlander CW. Mitsubishi Outlander CW is 129 mm longer than Nissan X-Trail T31 (4,765 mm vs 4,636 mm). Mitsubishi Outlander CW is the older design (from 2005); Nissan X-Trail T31 arrived in 2007. On the catalog figures, the Nissan X-Trail T31 is the pick for city.
Size and weight
| X-Trail T31 | Outlander CW | |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4,636 mm182.5 in | 4,765 mm187.6 in +129 mm +5.1 in +2.8% |
| Fits a standard garage? | Yes | No data |
Difference vs X-Trail T31 (±). 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
| Nissan X-Trail T31 | Mitsubishi Outlander CW | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 2.0 dCi diesel · 127 kW (173 PS) | 2.2 DI-D (PSA DW12) · diesel · 115 kW (156 PS) |
| Production years | 2007–2013 | 2005–2012 |
| 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. | 127 kW (173 PS) 170 hp Better | 115 kW (156 PS) 154 hp |
| Power, all versions | 104–127 kW (141–173 PS) 139–170 hp | 103–130 kW (140–177 PS) 138–174 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | No data | 380 Nm 280 lb-ft |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | No data | Diesel |
| Engine | 1,995 cc 2.0 l | No data |
| Gearbox | 6-speed manual | 6-speed dual-clutch |
| Drive | All-wheel drive | All-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,636 mm 182.5 in | 4,765 mm 187.6 in |
| Width | 1,790 mm 70.5 in | No data |
| Height | 1,700 mm 66.9 in | No data |
| Wheelbase | No data | 2,670 mm 105.1 in |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | 7.4 l/100 km 31.8 mpg US | No data |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | ★★★★☆ (2007) | ★★★★☆ (2007) |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (5): Body, Class, Country, Drive, Euro NCAP.
Better marks the stronger figure - only for measurable specs (power, torque, 0–100 km/h, consumption, boot, weight).