Skoda Kodiaq II vs Mitsubishi Outlander GN: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Skoda · 2023–present
Kodiaq II
- Power
- 110 kW150 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- 9.6 s
- Top speed
- 205 km/h
- Kerb mass
- 1,755 kg
Mitsubishi · 2021–present
Outlander GN
- Power
- 188 kW256 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- -
- Top speed
- -
- Kerb mass
- 2,179 kg
Version spec sheet All generations
Photo: LuvsMG481 / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
Categories won: Kodiaq II 0 Outlander GN 2
- City Too close to call Length: 4,758 mm vs 4,709 mm
- Performance Outlander GN Power per tonne: 86 kW/t vs 63 kW/t
- Running costs Outlander GN Fuel per year: €210 vs €1,310 (estimated)
In plain words
Mitsubishi Outlander GN has more power: 188 kW (256 PS) against 110 kW (150 PS) for Skoda Kodiaq II. Skoda Kodiaq II is 49 mm longer than Mitsubishi Outlander GN (4,758 mm vs 4,709 mm). Skoda Kodiaq II is lighter by 424 kg (1,755 kg vs 2,179 kg). At 15,000 km a year, fuel would cost about €1,310 (Skoda Kodiaq II), €210 (Mitsubishi Outlander GN) (estimated). Mitsubishi Outlander GN is the older design (from 2021); Skoda Kodiaq II arrived in 2023. On the catalog figures, the Mitsubishi Outlander GN is the pick for performance and running costs. Our catalog has no 0–100 km/h for the Mitsubishi Outlander GN 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 | Kodiaq II | Outlander GN |
|---|---|---|
| PI | C · 431 | C · 495 |
| Power | 35 | 45 |
| Grip | 29 | 40 |
| Handling | 48 | 38 |
| Top speed | 40 | 47 |
| Launch | 34 | 49 |
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 GN2.4 PHEV · plug-in hybrid · 188 kW (256 PS) 14.93 sat 145 km/h
- 2 Kodiaq II2.0 TDI · diesel · 110 kW (150 PS) 16.83 sat 130 km/h · +1.90 s
Size and weight
Side view to scale, all cars from the front bumper.
| Kodiaq II | Outlander GN | |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4,758 mm187.3 in † | 4,709 mm185.4 in † −49 mm −1.9 in −1.0% |
| Width | 1,864 mm73.4 in † | 1,897 mm74.7 in † +33 mm +1.3 in +1.8% |
| Height | 1,679 mm66.1 in † | 1,745 mm68.7 in † +66 mm +2.6 in +3.9% |
| Wheelbase | 2,789 mm109.8 in † | 2,705 mm106.5 in † −84 mm −3.3 in −3.0% |
| Kerb weight | 1,755 kg3,869 lb | 2,179 kg4,804 lb +424 kg +935 lb +24.2% |
| Fits a standard garage? | Tight | Tight |
Difference vs Kodiaq II (±). 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
| Skoda Kodiaq II | Mitsubishi Outlander GN | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 2.0 TDI · diesel · 110 kW (150 PS) | 2.4 PHEV · plug-in hybrid · 188 kW (256 PS) |
| Production years | 2023–present | 2021–present |
| Body | SUV | SUV |
| Class | SUV / crossover | SUV / crossover |
| Country | Czech Republic | Japan |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 110 kW (150 PS) 148 hp | 188 kW (256 PS) 252 hp Better |
| Power, all versions | 110–195 kW (150–265 PS) 148–261 hp | 120–225 kW (163–306 PS) 161–302 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | No data | 450 Nm 332 lb-ft |
| 0–100 km/h Why it matters: A shorter 0–100 km/h time means quicker getaways and safer merging onto fast roads. | 9.6 s | No data |
| Top speed Why it matters: Top speed hints at how relaxed the car is at motorway speeds, even if you never reach it. | 205 km/h 127 mph | No data |
| Power per tonne | 63 kW/t 76 hp/ton calculated | 86 kW/t 105 hp/ton calculated Better |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Diesel | Plug-in hybrid |
| Engine | No data | 2,360 cc · 4 cyl 2.4 l |
| Engine code | No data | 4B12 |
| Gearbox | dual-clutch | No data |
| Drive | No data | All-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,758 mm 187.3 in † | 4,709 mm 185.4 in † |
| Width | 1,864 mm 73.4 in † | 1,897 mm 74.7 in † |
| Height | 1,679 mm 66.1 in † | 1,745 mm 68.7 in † |
| Wheelbase | 2,789 mm 109.8 in † | 2,705 mm 106.5 in † |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | 1,755 kg 3,869 lb Better | 2,179 kg 4,804 lb |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | 910 l 32.1 cu ft | No data |
| Fuel tank Why it matters: A larger tank means more distance between fuel stops. | 55 l 14.5 gal US | No data |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | 5.3 l/100 km 44.4 mpg US | 0.8 l/100 km 294.0 mpg US Better |
| CO₂ | 139 g/km | 19 g/km Better |
| Fuel cost per year | €1,310/year estimated | €210/year estimated Better |
| Range on a full tank | 1,038 km 645 mi estimated | No data |
| Electric | ||
| Battery Why it matters: A bigger battery usually gives more range, but takes longer to charge fully. | No data | 20 kWh |
| Electric range Why it matters: A longer range means fewer charging stops on long journeys. | No data | 87 km 54 mi |
| Energy use | No data | 23.4 kWh/100 km |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | ★★★★★ (2024) | No data |
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 €1.65/l diesel, €1.75/l petrol. † from another version of this generation.