DETAILED CAR COMPARISON

1995 Mitsubishi Sigma vs 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger 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.

67.5–68.25
SPECIFICATION GROUPS

Every difference between the two cars

Basic Specifications

MitsubishiMakeMitsubishi
SigmaModelChallenger
1995Model year1996
SedanBody typeOff-road vehicle
5Seats5
4Doors5

Performance

8,1 s0–100 km/h—
230 km/hTop speed170 km/h
2972 ccEngine displacement2972 cc
205 HPPower185 HP
270 NmTorque265 Nm
6Cylinders6

Fuel & Consumption

PetrolFuel typePetrol
72 ltFuel tank74 lt
—Urban consumption16 lt
—Extra-urban consumption10 lt
10,1 ltAverage consumption—

Transmission & Chassis

Front-wheel driveDrivetrain4x4
5Gears4
205/65 R15Tyre size265/70 R15
YesABSYes

Dimensions

4750 mmLength4530 mm
1775 mmWidth1775 mm
1435 mmHeight1730 mm
1579 KgWeight1830 Kg
2720 mmWheelbase2725 mm

E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note

1995 Mitsubishi Sigma and 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger 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…