DETAILED CAR COMPARISON

1996 Volvo 960 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

VolvoMakeMitsubishi
960ModelChallenger
1996Model year1996
SedanBody typeOff-road vehicle
5Seats5
4Doors5

Performance

9,1 s0–100 km/h—
210 km/hTop speed170 km/h
2922 ccEngine displacement2972 cc
204 HPPower185 HP
267 NmTorque265 Nm
6Cylinders6

Fuel & Consumption

PetrolFuel typePetrol
80 ltFuel tank74 lt
16,5 ltUrban consumption16 lt
8,4 ltExtra-urban consumption10 lt
11,1 ltAverage consumption—

Transmission & Chassis

Rear-wheel driveDrivetrain4x4
4Gears4
195/65 R15 VTyre size265/70 R15
YesABSYes

Dimensions

4871 mmLength4530 mm
1750 mmWidth1775 mm
1411 mmHeight1730 mm
1600 KgWeight1830 Kg
2770 mmWheelbase2725 mm

E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note

1996 Volvo 960 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…