Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Mitsubishi Pajero 1991 fuel consumption

Mitsubishi Pajero from 1991 to 1997 real fuel consumption according to user reports is approximately 7% higher compared to advertised fuel consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 11% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 3% higher. Since 1991 the Mitsubishi Pajero average difference between owner-reported real-world fuel consumption and declared fuel economy has been significantly higher than average.

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

YearGasoline carsDiesel cars
All carmakersMitsubishi PajeroAll carmakersMitsubishi Pajero
1991+5%+24% +4%-
Show all years
1992+5%+24% +2%-
1993+5%+24% +3%-
1994+6%+24% +3%+13%
1995+5%+24% +2%+13%
1996+4%+14% +2%+13%
1997+3%+14% +3%+13%

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

1991 - 1997

Mitsubishi Pajero 1991 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines17.0 MPG
13.8 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines16.3 MPG
14.5 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+5%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines20.1 MPG
11.7 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines21.3 MPG
11.1 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *insignificant

According to advertised fuel consumption, Mitsubishi Pajero 1991 with automatic transmission have almost the same fuel economy as similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Mitsubishi Pajero with automatic transmission consumes around 3.7 litres per 100 km or 31% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars from other manufacturers, the Mitsubishi Pajero fuel economy is among the 20% worst in its class. The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 2.5 diesel engine and manual transmission (Mitsubishi Pajero 1991 2.5 TD 99 HP 4x4). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Mitsubishi Pajero with 3.5 petrol engine and manual transmission (Mitsubishi Pajero 1996 3.5 i V6 24V GLS 194 HP 4x4).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
2.5 liter diesel engine
Mitsubishi Pajero 1991 2.5 TD 99 HP 4x4 manual 20.6 MPG
11.4 l/100km
Mitsubishi Pajero 1991 2.5 TD 99 HP 4x4 automatic 21.4 MPG
11.0 l/100km
Mitsubishi Pajero 1996 2.5 TD 99 HP 4x4 manual 20.6 MPG
11.4 l/100km
2.8 liter diesel engine
Mitsubishi Pajero 1994 2.8 TD 125 HP 4x4 manual 19.0 MPG
12.4 l/100km
18.8 MPG
12.5 l/100km+1%
Mitsubishi Pajero 1994 2.8 TD 125 HP 4x4 automatic 19.3 MPG
12.2 l/100km
17.0 MPG
13.8 l/100km+13%
3.0 liter petrol engine
Mitsubishi Pajero 1991 3.0 V6 150 HP 4x4 manual 16.8 MPG
14.0 l/100km
17.3 MPG
13.6 l/100km-3%
Mitsubishi Pajero 1991 3.0 V6 150 HP 4x4 automatic 16.8 MPG
14.0 l/100km
13.5 MPG
17.4 l/100km+24%
Mitsubishi Pajero 1996 3.0 i V6 24V GLS 177 HP 4x4 manual 17.8 MPG
13.2 l/100km
17.3 MPG
13.6 l/100km+3%
Mitsubishi Pajero 1996 3.0 i V6 24V 181 HP 4x4 manual 16.9 MPG
13.9 l/100km
Mitsubishi Pajero 1996 3.0 i V6 24V 181 HP 4x4 automatic 16.9 MPG
13.9 l/100km
3.5 liter petrol engine
Mitsubishi Pajero 1996 3.5 i V6 24V GLS 194 HP 4x4 manual 17.2 MPG
13.7 l/100km
Mitsubishi Pajero 1994 3.5 V6 208 HP 4x4 manual 16.2 MPG
14.5 l/100km
Mitsubishi Pajero 1994 3.5 V6 208 HP 4x4 automatic 16.4 MPG
14.3 l/100km
Mitsubishi Pajero 1998 3.5 i V6 24V GDI 245 HP 4x4 automatic 18.1 MPG
13.0 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.