1996 Mitsubishi Carisma vs. 2010 Ford C-Max
To start off, 2010 Ford C-Max is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma would be higher. At 1,870 cc (4 cylinders), 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Ford C-Max (105 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 16 more horse power than 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma. (89 HP @ 4250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Ford C-Max should accelerate faster than 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma (176 Nm @ 2250 RPM) has 26 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Ford C-Max. (150 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Ford C-Max.
Compare all specifications:
| 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma | 2010 Ford C-Max | |
| Make | Mitsubishi | Ford |
| Model | Carisma | C-Max |
| Year Released | 1996 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1870 cc | 1596 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 89 HP | 105 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4250 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 176 Nm | 150 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2250 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Length | 4440 mm | 4380 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1828 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1410 mm | 1626 mm |
