Mitsubishi L 200 2006 fuel consumption
Mitsubishi L 200 from 2006 to 2012 real fuel consumption according to user reports is approximately 21% higher compared to advertised fuel consumption. Since 2006 the Mitsubishi L 200 average difference between owner-reported real-world fuel consumption and declared fuel economy has been less than industry average.
Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values
| Year | Diesel cars | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All carmakers | Mitsubishi L 200 | |||
| 2006 | +11% | +5% | ||
| Show all years | ||||
| 2007 | +12% | +5% | ||
| 2008 | +13% | +5% | ||
| 2009 | +14% | +5% | ||
| 2010 | +16% | +5% | ||
| 2011 | +19% | +5% | ||
| 2012 | +23% | +5% | ||
See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Mitsubishi L 200.
2006 - 2012
Mitsubishi L 200 2006 fuel economy
| Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines | 26.0 MPG 9.1 l/100km |
| Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines | 27.7 MPG 8.5 l/100km |
| Average real diesel consumption difference * | +5% |
According to advertised fuel consumption, a Mitsubishi L 200 2006 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.9 liters per 100 km or 10% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox.
The table below shows the real and claimed fuel consumption and the differences for specific versions.
| Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|
| 2.5 liter diesel engine | ||
| Mitsubishi L 200 2006 2.5 TD 4WD 136 HP manual | 27.4 MPG 8.6 l/100km |
26.1 MPG 9.0 l/100km+5% |
| Mitsubishi L 200 2006 2.5 TD 4WD 136 HP automatic | 24.8 MPG 9.5 l/100km |
|
| Mitsubishi L200 2.5 TD 4WD 168 HP manual | 29.4 MPG 8.0 l/100km |
|
* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.
User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.