Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Mitsubishi L 200 2010 fuel consumption

Mitsubishi L 200 from 2010 to 2015 real fuel consumption according to user reports is approximately 21% higher compared to advertised fuel consumption. Since 2010 the Mitsubishi L 200 average difference between owner-reported real-world fuel consumption and declared fuel economy has been similar to average.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearDiesel cars
All carmakersMitsubishi L 200
2010+16%+29%
Show all years
2011+19%+29%
2012+23%+29%
2013+27%+29%
2014+30%+29%
2015+33%+29%

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Mitsubishi L 200.

2010 - 2015

Mitsubishi L 200 2010 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines28.2 MPG
8.4 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines23.8 MPG
9.9 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+29%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Mitsubishi L 200 2010 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.7 liters per 100 km or 9% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars from other manufacturers, the Mitsubishi L 200 fuel economy is noticeably below average - at least two thirds of similar cars have lower fuel consumption.

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
2.5 liter diesel engine
Mitsubishi L200 Double Cab 2.5 DI-D 4WD 136 HP manual 28.3 MPG
8.3 l/100km
Mitsubishi L200 Double Cab 2.5 DI-D 4WD 136 HP automatic 27.0 MPG
8.7 l/100km
Mitsubishi L 200 2010 2.5 HP DI-D 178 HP 4x4 manual 30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km
23.8 MPG
9.9 l/100km+29%
Mitsubishi L200 Double Cab 2.5 DI-D 4WD 178 HP automatic 27.0 MPG
8.7 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.