Mitsubishi Outlander vs Nissan X-TRAIL

What's the difference?

The Mitsubishi Outlander LS Black Edition scores big marks for practicality as long as you don’t think of it as a conventional seven-seater. Treat it as a five-seater, with the super-handy option of squeezing a couple of kids into the occasional third row for short trips, and you’ll be laughing.

It’s comfortable, refined and fuel-efficient, but it isn’t perfect. Side curtain airbags not covering those ‘+2’ third row seats is a safety miss. The exterior design, especially at the front, is polarising (my guess is mostly to one pole). And the lengthy warranty hand-cuffing you to Mitsubishi network service to enable an ‘extra’ five years’ cover feels awkward.  

However, the closer is solid value-for-money. It not only passes the family practicality and flexibility test, it’s keenly priced and well-equipped relative to mid-size competitors.   

You’re looking at are two of the very best medium-sized SUVs out there. Regardless of price and position. Honestly, either should bring many years of sterling service.

Which one is for you depends on what that service needs to be.

The X-Trail e-Power is the better family-car allrounder, hands down, because of offers way more metal for the money, making it roomier and more practical. It’s also quieter, for some of the time at least.

But the ZR-V is athletic, agile and involving in a way the Nissan could never be. It’s also better equipped at this price point. And despite being from half-a-segment below, it’s still competitively packaged and feels from a class above.

We should be comparing this charming Honda against the Audi Q5 Sportback and BMW X4, it’s that special. 

Whichever you choose, Toyota really needs to pull something out of the box with the next-gen RAV4 to beat these two.

Say what you like about the current Mitsubishi Outlander, but there’s no doubt the design of the car’s ‘face’ is distinctive.

The large grille section consists of an upright lower panel and sloping, broadening, slotted upper piece. Big splashes of curved chrome run down the sides, at the same time defining the slim, angular daytime running lights above.

Then, more upright headlight units sit on top of separate fog lights, the entire combination topped by ‘Outlander’ script in proud relief along the bonnet’s leading edge, the latter obviously inspired by Range Rover’s long-established badge treatment.   

The rest of the exterior is more conventional, with - surprise, surprise - the Black Edition defined by a whole bunch of black stuff.

Everything from the 20-inch alloy wheels to the front and rear skid plates, exterior mirror housings and the grille are blacked out.

And the theme carries over inside with a sleek and comfy combination of black synthetic suede and synthetic leather on the seats (with contrast stitching), a black laser-etched panel in the front centre console around the gearshift, black headlining and black front pillar trim.

Overall, the interior is simple, understated and functional with a common-sense mix of physical and digital controls, as well as soft-touch materials where it counts.

Before we kick off on design, here are two annoying facts about the Honda.

First off, apparently ZR-V stands for Gen-Z Recreational Vehicle. Trying hard much, Honda?

Or maybe not trying hard enough. In Australia, the ZR-V colour range is pitiful, with just five choices against the Nissan’s dozen.

Please, at least import the 'Aqua Green' and 'Petrol Blue', as offered in Japan. Or better still, inject some actual rainbow variety.

Anyway, rant over.

Meanwhile, the X-Trail’s tastiest angle is the rear-three-quarter, which also reveals the chunky wide stance, nice glass-to-body ratio and clean surfacing.

Up front, though, it’s looking fussy and even a bit dated already. Nissan’s facelifted this look (it’s a three-year old one) in North America, where it’s sold as the Rogue. Check it out. No better really.

And we’re still years away from seeing that happen here, as our models are made in Japan. Like with the ZR-V.

Overall, though, both are fine-looking SUVs, though the Nissan’s styling seems more original.

At just over 4.7m long, close to 1.9m wide and 1.75m tall, the Outlander is a ‘large’ medium-size SUV.

There’s lots of breathing room up front and the car is wide enough that the driver and front passenger aren’t bursting each other's personal space bubbles.  

Within the car’s overall footprint, a 2.7m wheelbase (the distance between the axles) is pretty generous and rear seat room is good, too.

Sitting behind the driver’s seat set for my 183cm position I enjoyed more than adequate head, leg and shoulder room.

Folding that 50/50 split-folding row down means removing the ludicrously long (but undoubtedly effective) head restraints for a flat-floor load space of 478 litres (VDA).

We were able to load in the large CarsGuide pram, with room to spare, and our three-piece luggage set (36L, 95L and 124L) was also swallowed easily.

Lower the 40/20/40 split-fold second row seat and you have 1461 litres (VDA - to the roof) at your disposal. 

There are small storage areas either side of the load space behind the wheel tubs and tie-down anchors to help keep loose loads under control.

The Outlander LS Black Edition is rated to tow a 1.6-tonne braked trailer (750kg unbraked) with ‘Trailer Stability Assist’ standard, and the spare is a space-saver.

Advantage: X-Trail. Families seeking space in a larger-than-usual mid-sized SUV need look no further.

Before we go on, remember, our photos show the Ti but the base ST-L that matches the ZR-V LX’s price point features an 8.0-inch (rather than 12.3-inch) central screen, more-traditional analogue instrumentation cluster with a 7.0-inch TFT screen, non-leather seat trim and conventional, rather than camera, interior mirror.

Regardless, you’re also likely to notice how large and airy the X-Trail interior is, with easy access to all five seats thanks to very wide-opening doors, revealing an interior offering heaps of legroom, headroom and shoulder room.

The X-Trail trumps the ZR-V with 205 litres more cargo capacity at 575L versus 370L. But in reality, both offer a decently-sized opening to help make loading bulky things inside easy.

There are low flat floors with sufficient depth and width for plenty of gear and a few nooks and crannies for additional items.

Keep in mind that neither carry spare wheels. You get a can of goo and an air pump instead. Not good enough for many rural drivers.

And that X-Trail hybrid's boot space is 10L less than the five-seat petrol-only versions, but much bigger than the 465L offered up in the seven-seat variants (also petrol-only). And speaking of internal combustion processes…

Now, hang on. Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply compare the X-Trail e-Power with the recently-released Honda CR-V e:HEV RS range-topper?

They are, after all, roughly the same size.

And the answer would be yes, except the new CR-V hybrid is $60,000 drive-away, while you can buy a base X-Trail ST-L e-Power from under $55K drive-away… which just happens to be exactly how much the ZR-V e:HEV LX costs.

Do please keep in mind that cheaper versions of both Hondas are in the pipeline for Australia.

But considering the X-Trail ST-L costs the same price as the ZR-V LX, it lacks the latter’s 12-speaker Bose audio upgrade, leather upholstery, heated steering wheel, powered front-passenger seat, heated rear seats, wireless Apple CarPlay, wireless charger, reverse-tilt exterior mirrors, interior air purifier and hands-free powered tailgate with walkaway closing.

For an electric tailgate, leather and smartphone charger, you’ll need to step up to X-Trail Ti e-Power (as tested) from $54,690, before on-road costs, or just under $60K when drive-away costs are factored in, giving the ZR-V LX hybrid a handy $5K start.

However, the Ti does bring its own little exclusive luxuries, like tri-zone climate control, adaptive matrix LED headlights, a panoramic sunroof, exterior-mirror camera view, and 19-inch alloys – though you’ll need to fork out for the range-topping X-Trail Ti-L from $57,160, before on-road costs, (or nearly $63K drive-away to more-fully match most of the ZR-V LX hybrid’s spec.)

Advantage Honda. But, like we said, the Nissan has great big size on its side. And it has two electric motors for all-wheel drive – something the ZR-V has no reply for.

The Outlander LS Black Edition is powered by a naturally aspirated 2.5-litre four-cylinder petrol engine.

It produces 135kW at 6000rpm and 244Nm at 3600rpm, sending drive to the front wheels via a continuously variable automatic transmission.

One of the biggest differences between these and the Toyota RAV4 hybrid is that these two contestants offer a significantly fuller EV experience.

Why? The Nissan’s petrol engine never powers any of the driven wheels, but instead drives one or both electric motors to make it all-wheel drive (AWD).

The Honda, meanwhile, uses its petrol engine to sometimes drive an electric motor, but mostly powers the front wheels, making it front-wheel drive (or 2WD in SUV marketing-speak).

Still, from behind the wheel, they’re remarkably similar in how they feel and behave, even if they sound completely different on the road.

Now, this might seem like a free kick for the muscular X-Trail, but the power-to-weight ratio difference evens the score more than you might expect: the 1.9-tonne (1903kg) Nissan pumps out 82.6kW/tonne, compared to our 1.6-tonne (1586kg) Honda’s 85.1kW/tonne.

The result? The latter’s 300kg-plus advantage and lower, sleeker shape means that, against our stopwatch, there was very little in it between the two hybrids – 7.1 vs 7.6s in favour of the gutsier Nissan. But it was only about 0.2s for most of that, until the X-Trail’s extra torque finally overcame that extra mass.

That said, during our 70-100km/h overtaking manoeuvre, both needed 2.9s, again highlighting the Honda’s lightness, while braking hard from 100-0km/h the ZR-V stopped three metres shorter at 39.2m. Again, blame the Nissan’s weight.

Keeping all that performance in check in both SUVs, by the way, are MacPherson-style struts up front and a multi-link rear end.

Mitsubishi’s official fuel economy number for the combined (ADR 81/02 - urban, extra-urban) cycle is 7.7L/100km, the 2.5-litre petrol four emitting 174g/km of CO2 in the process.

Over a week of city, suburban and some freeway running, we averaged 8.9L/100km, which is pretty impressive for a close to 1.7-tonne, seven-seat SUV.

Minimum fuel requirement is 91 RON ‘standard’ unleaded and you’ll need 55 litres of it to fill the tank.

Using the official economy number, that translates to a range of around 715km, which drops to just under 620km using our real-world figure.

Here’s another key difference. Officially, the Honda averages 5.0 litres per 100km while the Nissan should average 6.1L. But in reality…

During our week with both hybrid SUVs that included a lot of inner-urban schlepping as well as spirited driving and repeated performance testing – which tends to sap the fuel – the ZR-V averaged 7.3L/100km versus 8.6 for the X-Trail.

Note that the latter requires the more-expensive 95 RON premium-unleaded brew, too.

For the record, the car’s computer read 6.1 in the Honda and 7.4 in the Nissan, while the official combined average carbon dioxide emissions figures are 114 and 139g/km respectively.

The latter’s 55L tank means it should theoretically achieve around 900km between refills, against its rival’s 1140km from a 57L tank.

And just in case you’re wondering, the X-Trail’s lithium-ion battery is pretty modest at 2.1kWh, but that’s exactly twice as large as the ZR-V’s. Neither require to be plugged in, since - as mentioned earlier - the petrol engines do the charging.

Close to 4.7m long and tipping the scales at 1660kg, the Outlander LS Black Edition is a substantial rather than large front-wheel drive SUV.

Its 2.5-litre four-cylinder petrol engine produces 135kW and 244Nm with that second, peak pulling power figure arriving at a relatively high 3600rpm.

You can expect 0-100km/h acceleration in around 10 seconds which is pretty handy, if not exactly earth-shattering.

That cornering performance is also helped by the (255/45) Bridgestone Ecopia rubber, designed specifically for SUVs and 4WDs. They’re economy-focused but grip hard, without a hint of squeal in tight cornering.

Braking is firm and progressive with (350mm) ventilated discs at the front and (330mm) solid rotors at the rear.

Under the heading of miscellaneous observations, the front seats remain comfortable and supportive after lengthy stints behind the wheel. An 11.2m turning circle isn’t tiny so it pays to plan ahead for U- or three-point turns. And all-around vision is good, with the exception of the enormous third row headrests. If there’s no one in those seats, make sure to remove them and pack the seat flat.

If you were taking either of these mid-sized hybrid SUVs on a short test-drive around urban streets, you might be forgiven for thinking the way they go and feel is almost indistinguishable.

Light, ultra-smooth and responsive all the way.

At lower speeds, both are easy to park, with sufficiently tight turning circles and aided by the surround-view cameras that shouldn’t be an issue for anybody to accurately place. Plus, there’s a decent degree of ride comfort to enjoy as well.

Understandably, for most folk behind the wheel, they’d struggle to them apart, truthfully.

The 2.0L four's engagement after a brief all-EV driving period is seamless, by the way, and also typically-Honda in the way that it revs freely, sounding urgent as it delivers its torque consistently, even at low speeds.

Put your foot down more, and the electric assistance comes into play again, providing a decent whack of speed – more so than you might initially expect. And all of this is provided with a refinement and civility you’d expect in a much more premium machine.

Other plus points include yet another subtle traction/ESC tune over gravel tracks, but one with a degree of looseness for a bit of fun if the driver is up for it, paddles that provide some EV regen-braking e-Pedal-style to slow you down, and a nifty drive-mode toggle that can be easily prodded by the driver without distraction. A sign of the enthusiasts who engineered this sporty SUV.

The only fly in the Honda’s driving ointment is noise. Too much road roar over coarse chip surfaces, and excessive wind rush from the large exterior mirrors.

Otherwise, the ZR-V is exceptionally accomplished dynamically for any modern family vehicle, and not just a medium-sized hybrid SUV. Not perfect, but massively impressive and delightful.

Only the X-Trail has an ANCAP crash test rating, and it’s achieved five stars, based on the smaller Qashqai “partner model”.

While ANCAP has yet to test the ZR-V, Euro NCAP recently awarded the Honda four out of five stars, citing it was “just below the five-star performance thresholds” due to slightly below-par adult side-impact protection where the front occupants’ heads can make contact, as well as safety-assist system anomalies whereby traffic-sign recognition and driver monitoring tech that do not default to ‘on’ or only operate above 45km/h, respectively.

Both models offer lots of driver-assist safety equipment, like Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) with pedestrian and cyclist detection, blind-spot alert, lane-keep assist systems, adaptive cruise control with full stop-go function, a driver fatigue monitor, auto high beams, traffic sign recognition, front/rear parking sensors, anti-lock braking system with brake assist, 'Electronic Brake-force Distribution', hill-start assist, stability control and traction control.

However, there are omissions: the Honda misses out on the Nissan’s rear AEB with pedestrian and cyclist calibration, while the Nissan’s seven airbag rating trails the Honda’s 11 – which includes full side airbag protection for outboard rear-seat occupants.

Both vehicles also include ISOFIX child-seat latches fitted to outboard rear seat positions, while a trio of top tethers for straps are included across the rear bench.

Note that Honda’s AEB system is operational from 5.0-180km/h according to Euro NCAP, the lane support systems work between 65-180km/h and the traffic-jam assist tech works between 0-72km/h.

The Nissan’s AEB kicks in from 5.0-130km/h, pedestrian and cyclist AEB from 5.0-80km/h, and the lane support systems work between 60-250km/h.

Mitsubishi Australia covers the Outlander with a 10-year/200,000 km warranty, with five-year corrosion (perforation) protection also included.

That’s double the time period offered by the majority of brands in the local new car market, however an unlimited kilometre term is more typical. And… there’s a catch.

To qualify for the 10-year cover Mitsubishi says, “The vehicle must have had ALL scheduled services performed within the authorised Mitsubishi Dealer Network (from the first service onwards).” 

Have the vehicle serviced outside the Mitsubishi network, or not in accordance with the service schedule, and you’re looking at five years/100,000km.

Speaking of servicing, capped pricing is available for 10 years/150,000km, with the lowest annual cost being $299, and the highest (year 10) coming in at $849. The annual average over that period is $434. Not outrageous, but not especially sharp, either.

Also worth noting, roadside assistance is complimentary for the first year, renewed annually for up to four years, again, if you have your Outlander serviced by an authorised Mitsubishi dealer.

Both Nissan and Honda offer a five-year/unlimited kilometre warranty that also includes roadside assistance.

But the ZR-V goes one better with a no-cost subscription to Honda Connect for remote vehicle operation, location and geo-fencing if required. Clever.

The Honda’s servicing intervals are every 12 months or 10,000km, with capped price servicing pegged at an annual flat fee of $199 for the first five years. That’s under $1000 over that period of time.

Nissan, meanwhile, matches all that, bar the 'Honda Connect' tech, and offers six years of capped-price servicing.

But at the five-year mark, the X-Trail e-Power costs over $1300 more than the ZR-V hybrid.