2008 Chevrolet Impala vs. 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer
To start off, 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2008 Chevrolet Impala. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2008 Chevrolet Impala would be higher. At 3,505 cc (6 cylinders), 2008 Chevrolet Impala is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2008 Chevrolet Impala (211 HP @ 5800 RPM) has 63 more horse power than 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer. (148 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2008 Chevrolet Impala should accelerate faster than 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer.
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, 2008 Chevrolet Impala (290 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 94 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer. (196 Nm @ 4200 RPM). This means 2008 Chevrolet Impala will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer.
Compare all specifications:
| 2008 Chevrolet Impala | 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Mitsubishi |
| Model | Impala | Lancer |
| Year Released | 2008 | 2012 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3505 cc | 2000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 211 HP | 148 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5800 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 290 Nm | 196 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4200 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | CVT |
| Number of Seats | 6 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 3 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5100 mm | 4582 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1763 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1500 mm | 1516 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2810 mm | 2634 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 8.1 L/100km | 7.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 9.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 59 L |
