Mitsubishi Challenger

Which Mitsubishi Challenger Version Should You Buy?

The Mitsubishi Challenger version to choose depends on whether you value stronger performance, lower measured fuel consumption, or a gasoline engine. Among the listed specifications, the restyled 2013–2015 2.5 MT offers the best measured combination: 178 hp, 400 Nm, 0–100 km/h in 11.7 seconds, a 179 km/h top speed, and combined consumption of 8.2 L/100 km.

The Mitsubishi Challenger version to choose depends on whether you value stronger performance, lower measured fuel consumption, or a gasoline engine. Among the listed specifications, the restyled 2013–2015 2.5 MT offers the best measured combination: 178 hp, 400 Nm, 0–100 km/h in 11.7 seconds, a 179 km/h top speed, and combined consumption of 8.2 L/100 km. The 2013–2015 2.5 AT provides an Automatic gearbox but has 50 Nm less torque, takes 0.7 seconds longer to reach 100 km/h, and consumes 1.2 L/100 km more. Earlier buyers can choose from 136 hp Diesel versions or first-generation Diesel and Gasoline engines, although several economy figures were not measured.

Mitsubishi Challenger generations compared

The first generation ran from July 1996 through May 1999 as an SUV 5-doors with four versions: 2.8 AT, 2.8 MT, 3.0 AT, and 3.5 AT. It supplied the broadest engine selection in the data, including Turbo Diesel and naturally aspirated Gasoline alternatives. Every version used AWD, while transmissions ranged from a 4-speed Manual or Automatic to a 5-speed Automatic.

The first-generation restyling, produced from June 1999 through September 2001, retained the SUV 5-doors body but offered only the 3.5 AT. Its 3496 cc Gasoline engine produced 245 hp and 343 Nm. Compared with the earlier 3.5 AT, displacement decreased by 1 cc while power and torque remained the same. The engine changed from front, longitudinal placement with Distributed injection (multi-point) to front, transverse placement with Direct injection (direct). Ground clearance increased from 210 to 220 mm, and kerb weight fell by 30 kg.

The second generation ran from 2008 through 2013 as an SUV 5-doors with two Turbo Diesel AWD versions: 2.5 AT and 2.5 MT. Both used a 2477 cc Inline engine with 136 hp and 314 Nm, so the main decision is transmission and the associated differences in acceleration, speed, consumption, and weight.

The second-generation restyling ran from 2013 through 2015 and again offered an SUV 5-doors with 2.5 MT and 2.5 AT versions. Both rose to 178 hp, a gain of 42 hp over their second-generation predecessors. The Manual version reached 400 Nm, while the Automatic produced 350 Nm. Both moved to 5-speed gearboxes, whereas the earlier Automatic had 4 speeds.

Mitsubishi Challenger engine specs

Power per litre helps separate engines of different sizes. The 2013–2015 2.5 MT and 2.5 AT each produce about 71.9 hp per litre. The two 3.5 AT versions produce about 70.1 hp per litre, the 1996–1999 3.0 AT about 62.2 hp per litre, the 1996–1999 2.8 AT and 2.8 MT about 49.4 hp per litre, and the 2008–2013 2.5 AT and 2.5 MT about 54.9 hp per litre.

Performance and fuel economy

Within the 2008–2013 pair, the 2.5 MT accelerates 1 second faster, reaches a top speed 3 km/h higher, and consumes 0.5 L/100 km less in city, highway, and combined driving than the 2.5 AT.

The restyled 2013–2015 2.5 MT improves on the 2008–2013 2.5 MT by 0.8 seconds to 100 km/h and 12 km/h in top speed. Its measured consumption falls by 1.7 L/100 km in the city, 0.2 L/100 km on the highway, and 0.8 L/100 km combined.

The restyled 2.5 AT is 1.1 seconds quicker and 12 km/h faster than the earlier 2.5 AT. Its city consumption falls by 0.8 L/100 km and combined consumption by 0.1 L/100 km, although highway consumption rises by 0.3 L/100 km.

Mitsubishi Challenger weight, clearance, tank and wheel sizes

The 1999–2001 3.5 AT has the most favourable weight-to-power figure at about 7.8 kg/hp, but its acceleration and top-speed figures were not measured. Among versions with measured performance, the 1996–1999 3.5 AT follows at about 8.0 kg/hp and has the highest measured top speed, 185 km/h.

Body length, width, height, and other exterior dimensions were not measured in the supplied data. Wheel sizes were also not measured for any version.

Which Mitsubishi Challenger version to buy and why

Choose the 2013–2015 2.5 MT for the strongest all-round set of measured Diesel figures. It combines the highest listed torque, 400 Nm, with the lowest combined consumption, 8.2 L/100 km. It is 0.7 seconds quicker to 100 km/h than the same-period 2.5 AT, travels 3 km/h faster at the top end, and saves 1.2 L/100 km combined.

Choose the 2013–2015 2.5 AT if an Automatic gearbox is the deciding requirement. It retains the Manual version’s 178 hp and has the same 2477 cc displacement, AWD, 215 mm clearance, 70 L tank, and 2710 kg gross weight. The trade-offs are 50 Nm less torque and higher measured consumption in every driving cycle.

Choose the 2008–2013 2.5 MT over the contemporary 2.5 AT when measured economy and performance matter more than transmission convenience. Both produce 136 hp and 314 Nm, but the Manual is 30 kg lighter, quicker to 100 km/h, faster, and more economical across all three measured consumption cycles.

Choose the 1996–1999 3.5 AT when maximum listed Gasoline output and measured top speed take priority. Its 245 hp exceeds the 3.0 AT by 60 hp, while its measured top speed is 5 km/h higher. The 1999–2001 3.5 AT keeps the same power and torque, weighs 30 kg less, and provides 10 mm more clearance, but its acceleration and top speed were not measured.

Choose the 1996–1999 2.8 AT instead of the 2.8 MT if torque and an Automatic gearbox are more important: it provides 59 Nm more torque. Choose the 2.8 MT if the measured 11.5-second acceleration and published fuel-consumption figures are more useful to your decision; the Automatic takes 19.5 seconds to reach 100 km/h, while its consumption was not measured.

Prices, sale availability, engine recalls, reliability, oil capacity, engine replacement details, and engine-number location are not measured in the supplied data, so they cannot determine the recommendation.