Mitsubishi Airtrek

Mitsubishi Airtrek: which version to buy

There is one generation of Mitsubishi Airtrek (June 2001–October 2005), one body (SUV 5-doors), and eight catalog versions. Every version is an Automatic. The buying question is not “which generation” — there is only one — but which 2.0 AT or 2.4 AT row matches the job: 126 hp FWD or AWD, 139 hp FWD or AWD, 160 hp FWD or AWD, or the 240 hp turbo AWD.

There is one generation of Mitsubishi Airtrek (June 2001–October 2005), one body (SUV 5-doors), and eight catalog versions. Every version is an Automatic. The buying question is not “which generation” — there is only one — but which 2.0 AT or 2.4 AT row matches the job: 126 hp FWD or AWD, 139 hp FWD or AWD, 160 hp FWD or AWD, or the 240 hp turbo AWD. Power in the data runs from 126 hp to 240 hp (114 hp, 1.90×). Torque runs from 173 Nm to 343 Nm (170 Nm, 1.98×). Kerb weight runs from 1330 kg to 1520 kg (190 kg). Ground clearance runs from 160 mm to 205 mm (45 mm). The tank is 60 l on every row. Prices are not in this dataset.

Generations: what actually changed between versions

1 generation (June 2001–October 2005) is the whole catalogue: SUV 5-doors, 8 versions. There is no second generation in the data, so there is no generation-to-generation restyle to wait for. Differences are inside this generation: engine size (1997 / 2350 / 2378 cm³), boost (No vs Turbo on one 2.0 AT), injection (Distributed injection (multi-point) vs Direct injection (direct)), gears (4 vs 5 on the turbo), drive (FWD vs AWD), kerb weight, clearance, and rear brakes (Drum vs Disc).

Specs table: every version by exact name

Where two rows share the name 2.0 AT or 2.4 AT, they are split by horsepower and then by drive, as in the source.

Engine placement is Front, transverse on the 2.0 AT 126 hp FWD 1350 kg, the 2.0 AT 240 hp, and both 2.4 AT 160 hp rows. On the other four rows it is not measured.

Engine: power per litre and what the extra displacement buys

2.0 AT 126 hp, 1997 cm³, No boost: 63.1 hp/l (126 ÷ 1.997). Same arithmetic on the 240 hp Turbo 2.0 AT: 120.2 hp/l (240 ÷ 1.997) — 1.90× the specific output of the 126 hp 2.0, on the same 1997 cm³ and the same 85 × 88 bore × stroke. Compression falls from 9.5 to 8.8. Peak torque moves from 173 Nm at 4500 rpm to 343 Nm at 2500 rpm (+170 Nm, and 2000 rpm earlier). Fuel grade moves from 92 to 95. That is the only Turbo in the set, and the only Automatic with 5 gears instead of 4.

2.4 AT 139 hp, 2350 cm³: 59.1 hp/l (139 ÷ 2.350) — 4.0 hp/l below the 126 hp 2.0. You pay 353 cm³ extra displacement for +13 hp and +34 Nm (207 vs 173). Bore × stroke is 93 × 100. Compression is 10.8, the highest in the data. Injection is Direct injection (direct). Fuel is 95.

2.4 AT 160 hp, 2378 cm³: 67.3 hp/l (160 ÷ 2.378) — the strongest naturally aspirated specific output here, +8.2 hp/l vs the 139 hp 2.4 and +4.2 hp/l vs the 126 hp 2.0. Versus the 139 hp 2.4 AT: +21 hp, +8 Nm (215 vs 207), +28 cm³, bore × stroke 87 × 100 instead of 93 × 100, compression 9.5 instead of 10.8, fuel 92 instead of 95. Peak power rpm is 5750 vs 5500 on every other row. Direct injection (direct) is shared with the 139 hp 2.4.

Turbo 2.0 AT vs strongest NA 2.4 AT 160 hp: +80 hp, +128 Nm, −381 cm³, 95 vs 92, Turbo vs No, 5 vs 4 gears, AWD only vs FWD or AWD.

Weight per horsepower: which version is the lightest to drive on paper

kg per hp (kerb ÷ hp), lower is less mass per unit of output:

• 2.0 AT 240 hp AWD Turbo, 1520 kg: 6.33 kg/hp
• 2.4 AT 160 hp FWD, 1410 kg: 8.81 kg/hp
• 2.4 AT 160 hp AWD, 1510 kg: 9.44 kg/hp
• 2.4 AT 139 hp FWD or AWD, 1450 kg: 10.43 kg/hp
• 2.0 AT 126 hp FWD 1330 kg or AWD 1330 kg: 10.56 kg/hp
• 2.0 AT 126 hp FWD 1350 kg: 10.71 kg/hp

The Turbo is 4.23 kg/hp lighter per horsepower than the heaviest 126 hp FWD (10.71 − 6.33). The 160 hp FWD is 1.90 kg/hp better than the 126 hp FWD at 1330 kg (10.56 − 8.81). AWD on the 160 hp pair costs 100 kg (1510 − 1410) and 0.63 kg/hp. AWD on the 126 hp pair at 1330 kg kerb is 0 kg versus the measured 1330 kg FWD — same listed kerb, same 1605 kg gross. The 1350 kg 2.0 AT 126 hp FWD is 20 kg heavier than the 1330 kg 2.0 AT 126 hp FWD with no extra horsepower.

Gross weight is measured only on four rows: 1605 kg on both 1330 kg 2.0 AT 126 hp cars (payload 1605 − 1330 = 275 kg), 1725 kg on both 139 hp 2.4 AT cars (payload 1725 − 1450 = 275 kg). Gross is not measured on the 1350 kg 126 hp FWD, the 240 hp Turbo, or either 160 hp 2.4 AT.

Performance and mpg: measured vs not measured

0–100 and top speed are measured on two rows only.

• 2.0 AT 126 hp FWD (1330 kg): 11.4 s, 192 (units as in the source field for max speed).
• 2.4 AT 139 hp AWD: 11.2 s, 194.

The 139 hp AWD is 0.2 s quicker and 2 higher in top speed, while carrying 120 kg more kerb (1450 − 1330) and AWD instead of FWD. That is the entire measured performance set. For 2.0 AT 126 hp FWD 1350 kg, 2.0 AT 126 hp AWD, 2.0 AT 240 hp, 2.4 AT 139 hp FWD, and both 2.4 AT 160 hp rows, 0–100 is not measured and top speed is not measured.

Fuel use is also measured on those same two rows only.

• 2.0 AT 126 hp FWD 1330 kg: city 11.5, highway 7.7, mixed 9.4.
• 2.4 AT 139 hp AWD: city 13, highway 8, mixed 10.1.

City gap +1.5, highway +0.3, mixed +0.7 on the 139 hp AWD versus the 126 hp FWD. On a 60 l tank, mixed range arithmetic is 60 ÷ 9.4 ≈ 6.4 (same units as the consumption figure) versus 60 ÷ 10.1 ≈ 5.9. For the other six versions, city / highway / mixed are not measured. CO2 is not measured on any version. Eco class is not measured on any version.

Dimensions, clearance, tank, brakes

Tank: 60 l on all eight. Wheel sizes: not measured on all eight.

Ground clearance:

• 205 mm: both 2.4 AT 160 hp (FWD and AWD) — highest.
• 195 mm: all 126 hp 2.0 AT except the Turbo, and both 139 hp 2.4 AT.
• 160 mm: 2.0 AT 240 hp AWD Turbo — 35 mm below the 195 mm group and 45 mm below the 160 hp 2.4.

Independent, spring front and rear suspension is listed on every version.

Rear brakes split the catalogue: Drum on all 126 hp non-turbo 2.0 AT and both 139 hp 2.4 AT; Disc on the 240 hp 2.0 AT and both 160 hp 2.4 AT. Front brakes are Ventilated disc on every version.

Which version to choose

Buy the 126 hp FWD 2.0 AT at 1330 kg if you want the only 2.0 with measured economy and the lowest measured mixed use (9.4). It is Gasoline 92, Automatic 4, FWD, 126 hp / 173 Nm, 11.4 s and 192 measured. The other 126 hp FWD at 1350 kg is the same power and torque with +20 kg, Front, transverse listed, and 0–100 / speed / mpg not measured — there is no number in the data that makes the extra 20 kg useful.

Buy the 126 hp AWD 2.0 AT if you need AWD at 126 hp. Kerb is 1330 kg and gross 1605 kg — the same as the measured FWD 1330 kg row — but 0–100, top speed, and mpg are not measured. You do not get a documented time or consumption penalty in this dataset; you also do not get a documented time.

Buy the 139 hp AWD 2.4 AT if you want the only 2.4 with measured 0–100 and mpg, plus Direct injection (direct) and 95. Versus the measured 126 hp FWD: +13 hp, +34 Nm, +120 kg, AWD, −0.2 s, +2 top speed, mixed +0.7. Compression 10.8 is the catalogue peak. FWD twin at the same 139 hp / 1450 kg / 1725 kg has the same engine numbers; performance and mpg are not measured.

Buy the 160 hp FWD 2.4 AT if you want the lightest strong naturally aspirated row: 1410 kg, 8.81 kg/hp, 205 mm, Disc rear, Gasoline 92. Versus 139 hp FWD: +21 hp, +8 Nm, −40 kg (1410 vs 1450), +10 mm clearance, 92 instead of 95. Versus 126 hp FWD 1330 kg: +34 hp, +42 Nm, +80 kg, +10 mm clearance. 0–100 and mpg are not measured.

Buy the 160 hp AWD 2.4 AT if you want that same 160 hp / 215 Nm engine with AWD. Cost versus its FWD twin: +100 kg (1510 vs 1410), same 205 mm, same Disc rear. Versus 139 hp AWD: +21 hp, +8 Nm, +60 kg, +10 mm clearance, 92 vs 95. Performance not measured.

Buy the 240 hp Turbo 2.0 AT if the numbers you care about are peak output and kg/hp, not clearance. It is the only Turbo, the only 5-speed Automatic, AWD only, 240 hp / 343 Nm, 120.2 hp/l, 6.33 kg/hp, Gasoline 95, compression 8.8, Front, transverse, Disc rear. Versus 126 hp AWD: +114 hp, +170 Nm, +190 kg, −35 mm clearance (160 vs 195). Versus 160 hp AWD: +80 hp, +128 Nm, +10 kg (1520 vs 1510), −45 mm clearance. 0–100, top speed, and mpg are not measured — the strongest engine in the file has no measured sprint or consumption.

If the extra money is for AWD: on the 126 hp 2.0 AT the listed kerb does not rise versus the 1330 kg FWD; on the 139 hp 2.4 AT FWD and AWD share 1450 / 1725 kg; on the 160 hp 2.4 AT AWD is 100 kg. If the extra money is for displacement without turbo: 139 hp 2.4 vs 126 hp 2.0 is +13 hp and +34 Nm; 160 hp 2.4 vs 126 hp 2.0 is +34 hp and +42 Nm. If the extra money is for turbo: one step from 126 to 240 hp on 1997 cm³, and you give up 35 mm of the 195 mm clearance group.

Problems and reliability are not in this dataset; they are not measured here. Wheel sizes are not measured. What the data does measure is eight Automatic SUV 5-doors in one generation, and the arithmetic above is the whole choice.