Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Mtsubishi outlander or citroen c crosser

Options
  • 29-12-2011 6:34pm
    #1
    Wex1977
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭


    Are these two vehicles the same. I have driven both and thought maybe the citroen with the 2.2 engine was more lively than the 2.0 Mitsubishi. Can get a 2008 citroen with 100,000 km for 14 k and it seems like a good deal. Mitsubishi bit more expensive but not that much either. I prefer the looks of the Mitsubishi though. I know there is v little difference but prefer the lights and shape. Road tax bit cheaper as well. So just wondering can anyone who knows tell me is one better than the other ? Have been debating all this for the last few months so just need To decide !! Thanks in advance :-)


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users Posts: 73,382 ✭✭✭✭colm_mcm


    The Mitsubishi has the 2.0 vw engine


  • Options
    #3
    Wex1977
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Wex1977


    colm_mcm wrote: »
    The Mitsubishi has the 2.0 vw engine

    Is that better or worse than 2.2 citroen engine ?


  • Options
    #4
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users Posts: 73,382 ✭✭✭✭colm_mcm


    I'm not sure, I know the 2.0cr TDI had a bit of a bad rep


  • Options
    #5
    EPM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,822 ✭✭✭✭EPM


    colm_mcm wrote: »
    I'm not sure, I know the 2.0cr TDI had a bit of a bad rep

    It was the PD that had the issues. Afaik Mitsubishi used different injectors which were the main issue with this engine.


  • Options
    #6
    Saab Ed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,374 ✭✭✭Saab Ed


    Wex1977 wrote: »
    Are these two vehicles the same.

    I have to be honest, for me to try and pick between either of these two is like trying to decide would I rather burn to death or freeze to death.

    What's the point in either of these SUVs or as I like to call them, social upmanship vehicles. It's just like taking a proper car and making it more expensive to run, large tyres, worse fuel consumption etc but without any of the advantages of a proper off road car.

    Just buy a nice estate car. It'll drive much better, look much better and cost you less to run. Now you won't be able to say you own a jeep if you go this route but by buying a C Lander you're not really getting a jeep anyway.

    Back to the original question, both look crap, drive worse than a proper car and neither can take seven people unless they're all midgets. They're both noisy, dated and off the pace. They also both win a Saab Ed award for the best scratching noises from their interior plastics. That takes some doing given the amount of cars the Koreans make these days.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    TigerTim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,234 ✭✭✭TigerTim


    Hi,

    I bought a C-Crosser last August. Really happy with it. Came with 6 months tax so don't have to face that bill until the end of Jan. Had a Citroen C5 previously but this seems to have more of a Mitsubishi input. Doesn't have the same stupid alarms as the C5. They were never a major problem & a turn off/back on used to resolve on the C5. This seems to have more Jap reliability. Not too light on diesel. Driving very easy, 6th gear & avg 50 mph gives about 40 mpg but driving like that would crack you up. Generally get about 34/35mpg on a long run. Loads of power & it's fairly heavy so I expected the fuel consumption. Many drivers shy away from Citroens IMO because of reliability or percieved reliability issues so these can be bought very cheaply. Some depreciation from new.

    T.


  • Options
    #8
    Wex1977
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Wex1977


    Saab Ed wrote: »
    Wex1977 wrote: »
    Are these two vehicles the same.

    I have to be honest, for me to try and pick between either of these two is like trying to decide would I rather burn to death or freeze to death.

    What's the point in either of these SUVs or as I like to call them, social upmanship vehicles. It's just like taking a proper car and making it more expensive to run, large tyres, worse fuel consumption etc but without any of the advantages of a proper off road car.

    Just buy a nice estate car. It'll drive much better, look much better and cost you less to run. Now you won't be able to say you own a jeep if you go this route but by buying a C Lander you're not really getting a jeep anyway.

    Back to the original question, both look crap, drive worse than a proper car and neither can take seven people unless they're all midgets. They're both noisy, dated and off the pace. They also both win a Saab Ed award for the best scratching noises from their interior plastics. That takes some doing given the amount of cars the Koreans make these days.

    Yes I thought about an estate but 4x4 would be very handy for pulling Horsebox in muddy fields.


  • Options
    #9
    Saab Ed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,374 ✭✭✭Saab Ed


    Wex1977 wrote: »
    Yes I thought about an estate but 4x4 would be very handy for pulling Horsebox in muddy fields.

    I know what you're thinking, I'll kill two birds with the one stone. It doesnt really work. Those soft roaders are about as usefull in a wet field as snowmobile in the Mojave.

    It's a funny irony that most people think that wet grass is a walk in the park (excuse the pun) when infact wet grass is actually one of the trickiest terrains to get moving on. If you need an off roader then buy an off roader. Bar road tax and about 10-15% less mpg, a Landrover Discovery cost no more to run than one of these plastic jeeps. Do the maths first and you'll see i'm not wrong, the difference is very little. Buy a year older proper jeep and it's job done.... or if you dont really need a jeep then buy a nice 520d touring instead.


  • Options
    #10
    Wex1977
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Wex1977


    Saab Ed wrote: »
    Wex1977 wrote: »
    Yes I thought about an estate but 4x4 would be very handy for pulling Horsebox in muddy fields.

    I know what you're thinking, I'll kill two birds with the one stone. It doesnt really work. Those soft roaders are about as usefull in a wet field as snowmobile in the Mojave.

    It's a funny irony that most people think that wet grass is a walk in the park (excuse the pun) when infact wet grass is actually one of the trickiest terrains to get moving on. If you need an off roader then buy an off roader. Bar road tax and about 10-15% less mpg, a Landrover Discovery cost no more to run than one of these plastic jeeps. Do the maths first and you'll see i'm not wrong, the difference is very little. Buy a year older proper jeep and it's job done.... or if you dont really need a jeep then buy a nice 520d touring instead.


    I get your point allright but previously had a Nissan x trail ( another soft roader ?) and it fufilled my requirements perfectly. I need as big a booth as possible, something that will tow, and will get me out of odd mucky field.had a car previously and when point to pointing ( part of my job) was forever getting stuck in wet fields, Nissan was good in wet ground. Partner has discovery and despite doing the math it does not justify me running one with the way it guzzles fuel & the mileage I do. So a small 4x4 is a compromise and suits me. Freelander had too little booth space for me so decided on outlander or c crosser.


  • Options
    #11
    TheLynx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 155 ✭✭TheLynx


    I would not recommend that car as I had one previously and it gave trouble frequently


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    furtzy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,464 ✭✭✭furtzy


    Had a 2010 Outlander up until recently.

    Good points

    Comfortable
    Well specc'ed especially the switchable 2WD/4WD/Diff lock
    Very good integrated bluetooth
    Spacious
    Reliable


    Bad points

    Paint quality was truly appalling. You could scratch it with your finger nail...no joke
    Terrible quality interior plastics
    Bad mpg especially urban cycle
    Very very tinny body panels
    Awful radio reception


  • Options
    #13
    Gophur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,921 ✭✭✭Gophur


    Ignoring SaabEd's hysterical rant, you will find a genre of vehicle that is immensely practical. AWD, 7 seats and close on 40mpg in one package. For those times you need any of the above you will find a good choice of vehicles, the Outlander being in the top half.

    I would guess the Citroen has the better engine.

    For those decrying the quality of the interior plastics, this seems to be an affliction shared with most MPV and all the cheap cars, like Fiat and Renault. (look at the Fluence, for example. Hideous)


  • Options
    #14
    Wex1977
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Wex1977


    Gophur wrote: »
    Ignoring SaabEd's hysterical rant, you will find a genre of vehicle that is immensely practical. AWD, 7 seats and close on 40mpg in one package. For those times you need any of the above you will find a good choice of vehicles, the Outlander being in the top half.

    I would guess the Citroen has the better engine.



    For those decrying the quality of the interior plastics, this seems to be an affliction shared with most MPV and all the cheap cars, like Fiat and Renault. (look at the Fluence, for example. Hideous)


    . Yeah that's what I was wondering, had 1 a better engine than the other.thanks Gophur


Advertisement