Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross vs Volvo EC40
Volvo EC40 leads 6 to 5
Biggest differences: AC charging — Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross 22 kW, Volvo EC40 11 kW · Boot — Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross 545 l, Volvo EC40 404 l · DC charging — Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross 150 kW, Volvo EC40 200 kW.
Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross
The Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross Long Range is a compact SUV with front-wheel drive and a long driving range according to the WLTP standard.
Volvo EC40
The Volvo EC40 (C40 until 2024) is an electric C-segment crossover with drive on one or both axles and a WLTP range of up to 583 km.
Profile against the market: Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross vs Volvo EC40
Mitsubishi Eclipse CrossLong Range 87 kWh FWD
Volvo EC40Single Motor Extended Range
Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross or Volvo EC40 — who wins where
Volvo EC40 leads 6 to 5
Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.
- WLTP range kmMitsubishi Eclipse Cross +17 km
- Battery kWhMitsubishi Eclipse Cross +5 kWh
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmVolvo EC40 −0.5 kWh/100 km
- Power PSVolvo EC40 +34 PS
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sVolvo EC40 −1.1 s
- Top speed km/hVolvo EC40 +10 km/h
- DC charging kWVolvo EC40 +50 kW
- AC charging kWMitsubishi Eclipse Cross +11 kW
- Charging ↓ minVolvo EC40 −4 min
- Weight ↓ kgMitsubishi Eclipse Cross −178 kg
- Boot lMitsubishi Eclipse Cross +141 l
Technical data: Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross vs Volvo EC40
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross Long Range 87 kWh FWD | Volvo EC40 Single Motor Extended Range | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 600 km | 583 km | Mitsubishi +17 km |
| Battery | 87 kWh | 82 kWh | Mitsubishi +5 kWh |
| Consumption ↓ | 16.7 kWh/100 km | 16.2 kWh/100 km | Volvo −0.5 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 150 kW | 200 kW | Volvo +50 kW |
| AC charging | 22 kW | 11 kW | Mitsubishi +11 kW |
| Charging 10–80% ↓ | 32 min | 28 min | Volvo −4 min |
| Range per minute of charging | 13.1 km/min | 14.6 km/min | Volvo +1.5 km/min |
| Voltage | 400 V | 400 V | No difference |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 218 PS | 252 PS | Volvo +34 PS |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 8.4 s | 7.3 s | Volvo −1.1 s |
| Top speed | 170 km/h | 180 km/h | Volvo +10 km/h |
| Drivetrain | FWD | RWD | different type |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 1842 kg | 2020 kg | Mitsubishi −178 kg |
| Boot | 545 l | 404 l | Mitsubishi +141 l |
| V2L (external power) | Yes | No | only Mitsubishi |
| Length | 4470 mm | 4440 mm | Mitsubishi +30 mm |
| Width | 1864 mm | 1873 mm | Volvo +9 mm |
| Height | 1571 mm | 1591 mm | Volvo +20 mm |
| Wheelbase | — | 2702 mm | — |
The better value in each row is bold and underlined in the colour of the car. Metrics marked ↓ — lower is better. Dimensions are shown without picking a winner.
Energy cost calculator
Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross
Volvo EC40
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross
Volvo EC40
Other comparisons in this class: SUV / Crossover, segment C
Frequently asked questions about this comparison
Which has the longer range — Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross or Volvo EC40?
The Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross goes further: 600 km WLTP against the 583 km of the Volvo EC40. That is a difference of 17 km.
How do the drivetrains of the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross and the Volvo EC40 differ?
The Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross has FWD and 218 PS. The Volvo EC40 has RWD and 252 PS.
Which one can power appliances from a socket (V2L)?
Only the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross — its 87 kWh battery then works as a power source. The Volvo EC40, with 82 kWh, does not offer it.
Which has the bigger boot?
The Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross takes more: 545 l against 404 l in the Volvo EC40. The difference is 141 l.
Technical data comes from official manufacturer materials and we do our best to verify it, but a manufacturer can change a specification without notice and mistakes do happen. Confirm the figures with a dealer before you buy — we accept no liability for decisions made on the basis of this data. Full disclaimer
Range, consumption and weight are given for the base configuration: manufacturers homologate them as a band of values that depends on wheels and equipment (e.g. 533–592 km), and we take the lightest variant, on the smallest wheels — i.e. the most favourable. The same model on larger wheels will travel a shorter distance.