2009 Audi A6 vs. 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer
To start off, 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Audi A6. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Audi A6 would be higher. At 2,995 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Audi A6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Audi A6 (300 HP @ 5100 RPM) has 152 more horse power than 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer. (148 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Audi A6 should accelerate faster than 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer.
Because 2009 Audi A6 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Audi A6 will offer significantly more control. 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, 2009 Audi A6 (420 Nm @ 2500 RPM) has 224 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer. (196 Nm @ 4200 RPM). This means 2009 Audi A6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Audi A6 | 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer | |
Make | Audi | Mitsubishi |
Model | A6 | Lancer |
Year Released | 2009 | 2012 |
Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2995 cc | 2000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 300 HP | 148 HP |
Engine RPM | 5100 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 420 Nm | 196 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2500 RPM | 4200 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | CVT |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4930 mm | 4582 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1763 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1516 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2850 mm | 2634 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.1 L/100km | 7.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 9.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 L | 59 L |