Mitsubishi Outlander vs BYD SHARK 6 DMO

A proper head-to-head in South Africa — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.

Mitsubishi Outlander in South Africa

Mitsubishi Outlander

2.5L Exceed CVT Petrol CVT Current
ZAR 819,995 ex-showroom
⚡ 135 kW 🔧 245 Nm ⛽ 12.3 km/l
VS
BYD SHARK 6 DMO in South Africa

BYD SHARK 6 DMO

Performance DMO AWD Plug-in Hybrid e-CVT Current
ZAR 1,149,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 180 kW 🔧 380 Nm ⛽ 9.5 km/l
+ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mitsubishi Outlander vs BYD SHARK 6 DMO: the short answer

SHARK 6 DMO holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Outlander.

Outlander starts ZAR 229,905 cheaper Outlander from ZAR 759,995 · SHARK 6 DMO from ZAR 989,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification Outlander SHARK 6 DMO
Maximum Power Outlander135 kW @ 6000 rpm SHARK 6 DMO180 kW
Maximum Torque Outlander245 Nm @ 3600 rpm SHARK 6 DMO380 Nm
Engine Size Outlander2488 cc SHARK 6 DMONot Officially Disclosed
Combined Fuel Economy Outlander12.3 km/l SHARK 6 DMO9.5 km/l
Ground Clearance Outlander210 mm SHARK 6 DMO230 mm

Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.

Independent editorial assessment

Hagalu editorial ratings

When a variant is selected, its rating out of five applies only to that exact derivative; a model-range review is not inherited. Editorial ratings are separate from the Specification Evidence Index out of 100 and are not customer ratings.

Mitsubishi Outlander

2.5L Exceed CVT

Hagalu editorial rating
4.3/5

Desk research · Exact variant

Editorial assessment, not a customer rating. Not road-tested for this review.

Read the review and score breakdown

BYD SHARK 6 DMO

Performance DMO AWD

Hagalu editorial rating
4.4/5

Desk research · Exact variant

Editorial assessment, not a customer rating. Not road-tested for this review.

Read the review and score breakdown

Not yet rated means a complete review is not published; it does not mean the vehicle scored zero. Read the rating methodology.

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

Outlander

Strengths
  • Nothing stands out clearly here.
Weak Spots
  • Less powerful engine setup
  • Lower fuel efficiency
  • Fewer listed safety features
  • Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to: General Use
Specification evidence leader

SHARK 6 DMO

Strengths
  • More powerful engine output
  • Better fuel efficiency
  • Stronger listed safety equipment
  • Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
  • No obvious weak spots to flag.
Best suited to: Published Performance Published Efficiency Published Practicality

Which One's Right for You?

Outlander

  • Buyers who prefer this derivative's confirmed specification mix

SHARK 6 DMO

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
  • Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec Outlander SHARK 6 DMO
Model Introduced Year 2022 2025
Generation Fourth-generation Outlander First South African SHARK 6 DMO generation
Facelift History Current 2026 South African specification including Edition 25. No separately marketed South African facelift announced as at August 2026
Facelift Launched Since Current specification Original current-generation version
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style SUV Double-cab Pickup
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status active Active
Segment Medium seven-seat SUV Double-cab Pickup
Vehicle Type Passenger vehicle Light commercial vehicle
Spec Outlander SHARK 6 DMO
Length 4710 mm 5457 mm
Width 1862 mm 1971 mm
Height 1745 mm 1925 mm
Wheelbase 2706 mm 3260 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 210 mm 230 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) 180 mm Not Officially Disclosed
Fuel Tank Capacity 55 l 60 l
Boot/Cargo Space 205 l 1200 l
Kerb Weight 1690 kg 2775 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 2355 kg 3500 kg
Payload Capacity 665 kg 725 kg
Towing Capacity 1600 kg 3500 kg
Seating Capacity 7 seats 5 seats
Number of Rows 3 rows 2 rows
Doors 5 doors 4 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.5 m 6.75 m
Front Headroom 986 mm 1025 mm
Rear Headroom 950 mm 990 mm
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1048 mm
Rear Legroom 1014 mm 880.4 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This Outlander and SHARK 6 DMO comparison uses the exact derivatives selected above for South Africa. The catalogue index covers performance, efficiency, safety equipment, practicality and ownership cover only where comparable source-backed fields are present.

Performance index: Outlander 56 vs SHARK 6 DMO 82.

Efficiency index: Outlander 49 vs SHARK 6 DMO 53.

Safety-equipment index: Outlander 76 vs SHARK 6 DMO 99.

Practicality index: Outlander 64 vs SHARK 6 DMO 87.

Ownership-cover index: Outlander not separately scored vs SHARK 6 DMO not separately scored.

These figures are Hagalu catalogue-comparison indicators, not customer ratings, crash-test scores, resale guarantees or a substitute for a road test. Each page shows its weighted source coverage beside the result.

Specification Evidence Index

A transparent comparison of published catalogue fields. This is not a road-test score, owner rating or editorial review rating, and it appears only when every vehicle clears the same comparable-data threshold.

Evidence / 100
Evidence-index readout

SHARK 6 DMO leads by 20 points

SHARK 6 DMO holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Outlander.

Evidence leader 82 /100
Lead 20 points
Data 83% source coverage
82
#1 Evidence leader

SHARK 6 DMO

83% source coverage 3 strong categories
Best at Safety 99 Check Efficiency 53
Performance 82
Efficiency 53
Safety 99
Practicality 87
Leads by 20 points
62
#2

Outlander

83% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 76 Check Efficiency 49
Performance 56
Efficiency 49
Safety 76
Practicality 64
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance SHARK 6 DMO +26 Efficiency SHARK 6 DMO +4 Safety SHARK 6 DMO +23 Practicality SHARK 6 DMO +23

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

SHARK 6 DMO

Performance 82/100
Efficiency 53/100
Safety 99/100
Practicality 87/100

Outlander

Performance 56/100
Efficiency 49/100
Safety 76/100
Practicality 64/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index BYD SHARK 6 DMO leads the specification evidence index with 82 pts vs 62 pts for Outlander

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, SHARK 6 DMO leads. However, Outlander may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in South Africa.

Outlander vs SHARK 6 DMO questions

There is no universal winner. Use the comparison table to match the models and available derivatives in South Africa on price, safety equipment, space, powertrain and ownership cover. The category indicators summarise published catalogue data; they are not a road test or customer rating.

Compare the published consumption or mileage rows for the exact derivatives using the same unit and test basis. A catalogue figure is useful for like-for-like comparison, but traffic, speed, load, weather and driving style can change actual fuel use.

Compare only equipment explicitly listed for each derivative, including airbags, stability control and driver-assistance systems. Confirm the exact trim with the manufacturer, and treat any independent crash-test result separately because equipment and ratings can differ by market.

A reliable five-year total cannot be calculated from catalogue data alone. Add the exact purchase and finance cost, fuel or electricity, insurance quotes, scheduled servicing, tyres and expected resale value. Check whether the selected derivative includes a service or maintenance plan.

Use the seating, boot or load-space, ISOFIX and safety rows as a first check. Then test the exact cars with your child seats, passengers and typical luggage, because published dimensions do not show every access or comfort difference.

Compare the published power, torque and 0–100 km/h rows when they are available for both exact derivatives. Vehicle weight, gearing and power delivery also matter, so catalogue outputs alone do not establish real-world overtaking or response.