DETAILED CAR COMPARISON

1996 Mitsubishi FTO vs 1996 Oldsmobile Cutlass Comparison

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

VS
WINNER

Oldsmobile Cutlass

Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 points.

67.5–68.25
SPECIFICATION GROUPS

Every difference between the two cars

Basic Specifications

MitsubishiMakeOldsmobile
FTOModelCutlass
1996Model year1996
CoupeBody typeCoupe
2Seats5
2Doors2

Performance

220 km/hTop speed190 km/h
1998 ccEngine displacement2260 cc
170 HPPower162 HP
186 NmTorque210 Nm
6Cylinders4

Fuel & Consumption

PetrolFuel typePetrol
60 ltFuel tank63 lt
—Urban consumption16 lt
—Extra-urban consumption9 lt
16,6 ltAverage consumption—

Transmission & Chassis

Front-wheel driveDrivetrainFront-wheel drive
5Gears3
195/60 R15 HTyre size195/75 R14 S
YesABSYes

Dimensions

4320 mmLength4900 mm
1735 mmWidth1805 mm
1300 mmHeight1350 mm
1150 KgWeight1445 Kg
2500 mmWheelbase2730 mm

E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note

1996 Mitsubishi FTO and 1996 Oldsmobile Cutlass 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, Oldsmobile Cutlass 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…