2005 MCC Crossblade vs. 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma
To start off, 2005 MCC Crossblade is newer by 9 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, 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma (89 HP) has 19 more horse power than 2005 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma should accelerate faster than 2005 MCC Crossblade.
Because 2005 MCC Crossblade is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2005 MCC Crossblade. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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 74 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 MCC Crossblade | 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma | |
| Make | MCC | Mitsubishi |
| Model | Crossblade | Carisma |
| Year Released | 2005 | 1996 |
| Engine Size | 599 cc | 1870 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 70 HP | 89 HP |
| Torque | 102 Nm | 176 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3210 RPM | 2250 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Length | 2630 mm | 4440 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1700 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1410 mm |
