DETAILED CAR COMPARISON

1996 Mitsubishi Challenger vs 1996 Mitsubishi Sigma Comparison

Compare technical specifications, scores and everyday-use differences side by side.

VS
WINNER

Mitsubishi Challenger

Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 points.

68.25–67.5
SPECIFICATION GROUPS

Every difference between the two cars

Basic Specifications

MitsubishiMakeMitsubishi
ChallengerModelSigma
1996Model year1996
Off-road vehicleBody typeSedan
5Seats5
5Doors4

Performance

—0–100 km/h8,1 s
170 km/hTop speed230 km/h
2972 ccEngine displacement2972 cc
185 HPPower205 HP
265 NmTorque270 Nm
6Cylinders6

Fuel & Consumption

PetrolFuel typePetrol
74 ltFuel tank72 lt
16 ltUrban consumption—
10 ltExtra-urban consumption—
—Average consumption10,1 lt

Transmission & Chassis

4x4DrivetrainFront-wheel drive
4Gears5
265/70 R15Tyre size205/65 R15
YesABSYes

Dimensions

4530 mmLength4750 mm
1775 mmWidth1775 mm
1730 mmHeight1435 mm
1830 KgWeight1579 Kg
2725 mmWheelbase2720 mm

E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note

1996 Mitsubishi Challenger and 1996 Mitsubishi Sigma approach the same decision from different angles. We compare the exact versions so changes in engine, transmission, dimensions and equipment are not hidden behind the model names.

Overall, Mitsubishi Challenger leads the E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 points. The score provides a consistent summary, while the best choice can still change with priorities such as urban efficiency, luggage space, performance or equipment.

SIMILAR COMPARISONS

Similar comparisons

Explore related comparisons featuring cars from this matchup.

Comments are loading…