Ford Expedition vs Mitsubishi Outlander: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Mitsubishi Outlander burns about $2,200 of fuel annually against $3,100 for the Ford Expedition. That $900 yearly gap compounds to roughly $4,500 over five years and $7,200 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.

City and highway economy: the Mitsubishi Outlander leads in both cycles — 27 mpg city and 32 mpg highway against 17 and 24 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.

Powertrain choice: the Ford Expedition is recorded with 3 distinct engine configurations (SIDI & PFI, SIDI, SIDI; Stop-Start), the Mitsubishi Outlander with 4 (2.4, 2.0, PHEV). Across 49 recorded Ford Expedition configurations and 88 for the Mitsubishi Outlander, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.

Drivetrain and class: the Ford Expedition is offered with Part-time 4-Wheel Drive, Rear-Wheel Drive, the Mitsubishi Outlander with 4-Wheel Drive, Front-Wheel Drive, All-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Standard Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD and Small Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Mitsubishi Outlander emits 97 g/mile of CO2 versus 441 g/mile for the Ford Expedition. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.