Car comparison

Alfa Romeo 159 3.2 JTS V6vsMitsubishi Lancer IX Ralliart 2.0

Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.

New comparison

Alfa Romeo 159

3.2 JTS V6

260 hp3195 ccGasolineFWDManualNaturally aspiratedSedan2008-2009
VS

Mitsubishi Lancer IX

Ralliart 2.0

240 hp1998 ccGasolineAWDAutomaticTurbochargedSedan2009-2011

Comparison overview

Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.

Best choices

Mitsubishi Lancer IX Ralliart 2.0

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h
    7.0 s
  • Lightest
    1,365 kg
    3,009 lb
  • Best power-to-weight
    176 hp/t
    131 kW/t
    5.7 kg/hp
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
    8.4 L/100 km
    28.0 mpg US
    33.6 mpg UK
  • Lowest city consumption
    10.5 L/100 km
    22.4 mpg US
    26.9 mpg UK
  • Lowest highway consumption
    6.4 L/100 km
    36.8 mpg US
    44.1 mpg UK
  • Best estimated range
    702 km
    436 mi
  • Best overall score
    63/100
  • Best economy score
    84/100
  • Best practicality score
    78/100

Alfa Romeo 159 3.2 JTS V6

  • Fastest top speed
    260 km/h
    162 mph Unrestricted
    250 km/h
    155 mph Restricted
  • Most powerful
    260 hp
    194 kW
  • Highest torque
    322 Nm
    237 lb-ft
  • Best performance score
    58/100

Specification comparison

Specification comparison
ModelAlfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0
Power
260hp194kW
240hp179kW
Torque
322Nm237lb-ft
309Nm228lb-ft
Curb weight
1,540kg3,395lb
1,365kg3,009lb
Gross weight
2,090kg4,608lb
1,850kg4,079lb
Top speed
Unrestricted
260 km/h162 mph
Restricted
250 km/h155 mph
Calculated
Unrestricted
240 km/h149 mph
Restricted
230 km/h143 mph
Calculated
To 99% top speed
70.6s99% target: 257 km/h / 160 mph
Calculated
61.4s99% target: 238 km/h / 148 mph
Calculated
0-100 km/h
7.1s
7.0s
0-200 km/h
22.0s
Calculated
23.6s
Calculated
0-60 mph
6.8s
Calculated
6.7s
Calculated
Fuel consumption
11L/100 km21.4mpg US25.7mpg UK
8.4L/100 km28mpg US33.6mpg UK
Fuel consumption city
16.4L/100 km14.3mpg US17.2mpg UK
10.5L/100 km22.4mpg US26.9mpg UK
Fuel consumption highway
7.9L/100 km29.8mpg US35.8mpg UK
6.4L/100 km36.8mpg US44.1mpg UK
Quarter mile
14.9s
Calculated
14.9s
Calculated
Power-to-weight
169hp/t126kW/t77hp/1000 lb
Calculated
176hp/t131kW/t80hp/1000 lb
Calculated
Torque-to-weight
209Nm/t140lb-ft/ton
Calculated
226Nm/t151lb-ft/ton
Calculated
Estimated range
636km395mi
Calculated
702km436mi
Calculated
Displacement
3,195cc195cu in
1,998cc122cu in
Length
4,660mm183in
4,570mm180in
Width
1,828mm72in
1,760mm69in
Height
1,422mm56in
1,505mm59in
Wheelbase
2,700mm106in
2,635mm104in
Front track
1,578mm62in
1,530mm60in
Rear track
1,555mm61in
1,530mm60in
Trunk volume
405L
-
Doors
4
4
Seats
5
5
Fuel tank
70L
59L
CO2 emissions
260g/km
-

Performance charts

Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.

Dyno simulation

Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.

Alfa Romeo 159 3.2 JTS V6Mitsubishi Lancer IX Ralliart 2.0PowerTorque
  • Alfa Romeo 159 3.2 JTS V6: Power / Torque
  • Mitsubishi Lancer IX Ralliart 2.0: Power / Torque
Dyno simulation data table
VehiclePeak power RPMPeak torque RPMMax engine speed
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V66,300 rpm4,500 rpm6,550 rpm
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.06,000 rpm3,500 rpm6,250 rpm

Acceleration curve

Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.

Acceleration and drag-race table
MetricAlfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0
Acceleration checkpoints
0-60 mph
0-97 km/h
6.8 s
6.7 s
0-100 km/h
0-62 mph
7.1 s
7.0 s
0-200 km/h
0-124 mph
22.0 s
23.6 s
Top speed
Unrestricted
260 km/h162 mph
Restricted
250 km/h155 mph
Likely limited
Unrestricted
240 km/h149 mph
Restricted
230 km/h143 mph
Likely limited
Drag race simulation
60 ft
18 m
2.8 s
2.7 s
330 ft
101 m
6.8 s
6.8 s
1/8 mile
201 m
10.0 s
10.0 s
1000 ft
305 m
12.7 s
12.7 s
1/4 mile
402 m
14.9 s
14.9 s
Trap speed
1/4 mile
402 m
165 km/h
102 mph
163 km/h
101 mph

Power comparison

Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW

Chart data table
VehicleValue
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6
260 hp
194 kW
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0
240 hp
179 kW

Alfa Romeo 159 3.2 JTS V6 has 20 hp more than Mitsubishi Lancer IX Ralliart 2.0.

The biggest power difference is between Mitsubishi Lancer IX Ralliart 2.0 and Alfa Romeo 159 3.2 JTS V6: 20 hp (15 kW).

Torque comparison

Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft

Chart data table
VehicleValue
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6
322 Nm
237 lb-ft
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0
309 Nm
228 lb-ft

Curb weight comparison

Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb

Chart data table
VehicleValue
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6
1,540 kg
3,395 lb
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0
1,365 kg
3,009 lb

Top speed without limiter comparison

Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph

Chart data table
VehicleValue
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6
Unrestricted
260 km/h162 mph
Restricted
250 km/h155 mph
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0
Unrestricted
240 km/h149 mph
Restricted
230 km/h143 mph

0-100 km/h comparison

Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds

Chart data table
VehicleValue
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V67.1 s
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.07.0 s

Although Alfa Romeo 159 3.2 JTS V6 has more power, Mitsubishi Lancer IX Ralliart 2.0 is quicker from 0-100 km/h.

The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Mitsubishi Lancer IX Ralliart 2.0 and Alfa Romeo 159 3.2 JTS V6: 0.1 s.

Fuel consumption comparison

Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK

Chart data table
VehicleValue
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6
11.0 L/100 km
21.4 mpg US
25.7 mpg UK
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0
8.4 L/100 km
28.0 mpg US
33.6 mpg UK

The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Mitsubishi Lancer IX Ralliart 2.0 and Alfa Romeo 159 3.2 JTS V6: 2.6 L/100 km.

Power-to-weight comparison

Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t

Chart data table
VehicleValue
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6
169 hp/t
126 kW/t
5.9 kg/hp
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0
176 hp/t
131 kW/t
5.7 kg/hp

Estimated range comparison

Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi

Chart data table
VehicleValue
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6
636 km
395 mi
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0
702 km
436 mi

Performance spider chart

Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.

Chart data table
VehiclePowerAccelerationTop speed
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6
260 hp
194 kW
7.1 s
Unrestricted
260 km/h162 mph
Restricted
250 km/h155 mph
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0
240 hp
179 kW
7.0 s
Unrestricted
240 km/h149 mph
Restricted
230 km/h143 mph

Most attractive quadrant

Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.

Chart data table
VehiclePerformance scorePracticality score
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6
Power
260 hp
194 kW
0-100 km/h7.1 s
Top speed
Unrestricted
260 km/h162 mph
Restricted
250 km/h155 mph
Doors/seats
4 doors
5 seats
Trunk
405 L
14.3 cu ft
Length
4,660 mm
183.5 in
Height
1,422 mm
56.0 in
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0
Power
240 hp
179 kW
0-100 km/h7.0 s
Top speed
Unrestricted
240 km/h149 mph
Restricted
230 km/h143 mph
Doors/seats
4 doors
5 seats
Trunk-
Length
4,570 mm
179.9 in
Height
1,505 mm
59.3 in

Performance vs fuel economy

Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.

Performance vs fuel economy data table
VehiclePerformance scoreFuel economy score
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6
Power
260 hp
194 kW
0-100 km/h7.1 s
Top speed
Unrestricted
260 km/h162 mph
Restricted
250 km/h155 mph
11.0 L/100 km
21.4 mpg US
25.7 mpg UK
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0
Power
240 hp
179 kW
0-100 km/h7.0 s
Top speed
Unrestricted
240 km/h149 mph
Restricted
230 km/h143 mph
8.4 L/100 km
28.0 mpg US
33.6 mpg UK

Mitsubishi Lancer IX Ralliart 2.0 is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.

Acceleration vs fuel consumption

Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.

Acceleration vs fuel consumption data table
VehicleFuel consumption, L/100 km0-100 km/h, s
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6
11.0 L/100 km
21.4 mpg US
25.7 mpg UK
7.1 s
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0
8.4 L/100 km
28.0 mpg US
33.6 mpg UK
7.0 s

Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption

The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.

Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption data table
VehiclePower-to-weight, hp/tFuel consumption, L/100 km
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6
169 hp/t
126 kW/t
5.9 kg/hp
11.0 L/100 km
21.4 mpg US
25.7 mpg UK
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0
176 hp/t
131 kW/t
5.7 kg/hp
8.4 L/100 km
28.0 mpg US
33.6 mpg UK

Detailed score breakdown

Detailed score breakdown
VehicleAlfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0
Power
260 hp
194 kW
240 hp
179 kW
Torque
322 Nm
237 lb-ft
309 Nm
228 lb-ft
Acceleration
7.1 s
7.0 s
Top speed
Unrestricted
260 km/h162 mph
Restricted
250 km/h155 mph
Unrestricted
240 km/h149 mph
Restricted
230 km/h143 mph
Lightness
1,540 kg
3,395 lb
1,365 kg
3,009 lb
Fuel consumption
11.0 L/100 km
21.4 mpg US
25.7 mpg UK
8.4 L/100 km
28.0 mpg US
33.6 mpg UK
Practicality
Doors/seats
4 doors
5 seats
Trunk
405 L
14.3 cu ft
Length
4,660 mm
183.5 in
Height
1,422 mm
56.0 in
Doors/seats
4 doors
5 seats
Trunk-
Length
4,570 mm
179.9 in
Height
1,505 mm
59.3 in
Range score
636 km
395 mi
702 km
436 mi
CO2 score
260 g/km
-
Trunk score
405 L
14.3 cu ft
-
Power-to-weight score
169 hp/t
126 kW/t
5.9 kg/hp
176 hp/t
131 kW/t
5.7 kg/hp
Overall
Fixed score
Fixed score

Fuel cost and annual usage

Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.

Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.

LC = Local Currency

Fuel cost and annual usage
VehicleAlfa Romeo 159 3.2 JTS V6Mitsubishi Lancer IX Ralliart 2.0
Consumption11 L/100 km21.4 mpg US25.7 mpg UK8.4 L/100 km28 mpg US33.6 mpg UK
Cost / 100 km19.25 LC100 km14.70 LC100 km
Cost / 100 mi30.98 LC100 mi23.66 LC100 mi
Annual fuel used1,650 L436 US gal363 UK gal1,260 L333 US gal277 UK gal
Annual fuel cost2,888 LC/year2,205 LC/year

Head-to-head comparisons

Alfa Romeo 159 3.2 JTS V6

  • Has 20 hp more
  • Has 13 Nm more
  • Has 20 km/h (12 mph) higher top speed

Pros

  • Highest top speed
  • Most powerful
  • Highest torque

Cons

  • Slowest 0-100 km/h
  • Highest combined fuel consumption
  • Heaviest

Mitsubishi Lancer IX Ralliart 2.0

  • Is 175 kg lighter
  • Is 0.1 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
  • Uses 2.6 L/100 km less fuel
  • Has 7 hp/t better power-to-weight
  • Has 66 km (41 mi) more estimated range

Pros

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
  • Lightest
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
  • Best power-to-weight ratio
  • Best estimated range

Cons

  • Lowest power
  • Lowest top speed

Choose cars to compare

Brand
Model
Generation
Engine or modification
Alfa Romeo 159 3.2 JTS V6
Mitsubishi Lancer IX Ralliart 2.0
Compare selected cars
2 vehicles selected

Popular comparisons

3.2 JTS V6
3.2 JTS V6
VS
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6vsAlfa Romeo159 Sportwagon3.2 JTS V6
Ralliart 2.0
2.0 T5
VS
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0vsVolvoS60 II2.0 T5
3.2 JTS V6
2.8 T V6
VS
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6vsCadillacBLS2.8 T V6
Ralliart 2.0
2.0
VS
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0vsMitsubishiLancer Evolution VIII2.0
3.2 JTS V6
2.4i T5 20V
VS
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6vsVolvoS602.4i T5 20V
Ralliart 2.0
3.5i V6 24V
VS
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0vsNissanTeana II3.5i V6 24V
3.2 JTS V6
3.2 V6 FSI
VS
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6vsVolkswagenPassat (B6)3.2 V6 FSI
Ralliart 2.0
3.5 V6
VS
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0vsRenaultLatitude3.5 V6
3.2 JTS V6
3.3 V6
VS
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6vsHyundaiSonata V (NF)Facelift 20083.3 V6
Ralliart 2.0
2.5 T5
VS
MitsubishiLancer IXRalliart 2.0vsVolvoS40 IIFacelift 20072.5 T5
3.2 JTS V6
3.6 i V6
VS
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6vsCadillacSTS3.6 i V6
3.2 JTS V6
3.2 FSI V6
VS
Alfa Romeo1593.2 JTS V6vsAUDIA6 (4F/C6)3.2 FSI V6
Alfa Romeo 159 3.2 JTS V6 vs Mitsubishi Lancer IX Ralliart 2.0 - car comparison - FastVsFaster