2005 Mitsubishi Outlander vs. 2010 Kia Cee'd
To start off, 2010 Kia Cee'd is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander would be higher. At 2,376 cc (4 cylinders), 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander (163 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 49 more horse power than 2010 Kia Cee'd. (114 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander should accelerate faster than 2010 Kia Cee'd. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander weights approximately 152 kg more than 2010 Kia Cee'd. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2010 Kia Cee'd (255 Nm) has 38 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander. (217 Nm). This means 2010 Kia Cee'd will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander | 2010 Kia Cee'd | |
| Make | Mitsubishi | Kia |
| Model | Outlander | Cee'd |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2010 |
| Body Type | SUV | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2376 cc | 1582 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 163 HP | 114 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 217 Nm | 255 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 87.1 mm | 77.2 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 100 mm | 84.5 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 17.3:1 |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 3 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1510 kg | 1358 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4550 mm | 4260 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1800 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1690 mm | 1460 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2550 mm | 2660 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.2 L/100km | 4.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 59 L | 53 L |
