Land Rover Defender vs Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross burns about $2,300 of fuel annually against $3,800 for the Land Rover Defender. That $1,500 yearly gap compounds to roughly $7,500 over five years and $12,000 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 Eclipse Cross leads in both cycles — 26 mpg city and 29 mpg highway against 18 and 23 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.

Powertrain choice: the Land Rover Defender is recorded with 2 distinct engine configurations (SIDI; Mild Hybrid, SIDI), the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross with 1 (SIDI). Across 54 recorded Land Rover Defender configurations and 28 for the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross, 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 Land Rover Defender is offered with 4-Wheel Drive, the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross with 4-Wheel Drive, Front-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 Eclipse Cross emits 327 g/mile of CO2 versus 444 g/mile for the Land Rover Defender. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.