Mitsubishi Lancer vs Honda Jazz Comparison

Mitsubishi Lancer vs Honda Jazz Compare Review at PCauto

Can't choose between the 2016 Mitsubishi Lancer 2.0 GTE and 2019 Honda Jazz 1.5 Hybrid? Let our expert comparison guide you. We meticulously assess pricing, dimensions, fuel efficiency, interior space, safety features, and color variations to help you find your ideal car. 2016 Mitsubishi Lancer 2.0 GTE Highlights The 2016 Mitsubishi Lancer 2.0 GTE starts at RM 119,406 and launched on 2016. Powered by Petrol, it achieves an excellent 8.4L/100km. 2019 Honda Jazz 1.5 Hybrid Highlights The 2019 Honda Jazz 1.5 Hybrid starts at RM 87,707 and launched on 2019. Powered by Petrol Hybrid(HEV,MHEV), it achieves an excellent 4L/100km. Facing too many options? PCauto's car comparison tool cuts through the confusion. Pick the models you like, and we'll deliver a precise, data-driven analysis. We compare essential aspects—price, size, colors, cabin space, and fuel economy—so you can see exactly how 2016 Mitsubishi Lancer 2.0 GTE and 2019 Honda Jazz 1.5 Hybrid differ. One click reveals specs, design, features, and updates, ensuring you choose wisely and buy confidently.

Warm reminder: The above data is for reference only. The model configuration shall be subject to the actual vehicle. If there is any change, the right of interpretation belongs to the manufacturer.

Mitsubishi Lancer vs Honda Jazz Pros & Cons

	Pros	Cons
Mitsubishi Lancer	Low fuel consumption for cost savingsGood handling with special chassis designFine interior workmanship and comfortable seatsAmple space for most passengersAffordable maintenance with mature engine tech	Underpowered with slow accelerationShort distance braking not idealCramped space for taller peopleOnly three stars in crash tests
Honda Jazz	High spatial flexibility, diverse front and rear seat configurationsFollows the philosophy of 'human maximum, machine minimum', excellent leg and knee space, good thigh support for rear seats1.2 litre petrol engine is refined, power delivery is smooth, NVH level is low, comfortable in-vehicle experience	Long time on the market, design looks oldEquipped with fewer features, lacks many modern comfort and convenience featuresFuel efficiency does not reach the benchmark of the same level