Toyota Rav-4 2.5 Premium 4×4 AT (White Pearl) (2016) vs Mitsubishi Montero Sport 2.4L GLS 2WD 8AT (2020)
A full spec-by-spec comparison of Toyota Rav-4 2.5 Premium 4×4 AT (White Pearl) (2016) vs Mitsubishi Montero Sport 2.4L GLS 2WD 8AT (2020) — engine, performance, dimensions, features and price, with the differences highlighted to help you decide.
| Specification | Toyota Rav-4 2.5 Premium 4×4 AT (White Pearl) (2016) Toyota ₱2,149,000 | Mitsubishi Montero Sport 2.4L GLS 2WD 8AT (2020) Mitsubishi ₱1,927,000 |
|---|---|---|
| Overview | ||
| Model Year | 2016 | 2020 |
| Warranty | 100,000km/3-years | 3-years/100,000 km |
| Availability | Current | Current |
| Engine & Drivetrain | ||
| Engine Type | Inline-4 | Inline-4 |
| Displacement | 2494cc | 2442cc |
| Valvetrain | DOHC 16-valve | DOHC 16-valve |
| Aspiration | Naturally Aspirated, Dual VVT-i | Turbocharged |
| Fuel Type | Gas | Diesel |
| Max Power | 180 PS @ 6000 rpm | 181 PS @ 3500 rpm |
| Max Torque | 233 Nm @ 4100 rpm | 430 Nm @ 2500 rpm |
| Transmission | 6-speed A/T | 8-speed A/T |
| Drivetrain | AWD | RWD |
| Compression Ratio | — | 15.5:1 |
| Body & Dimensions | ||
| Body Type | Crossover | Midsize Crossover SUV |
| Segment | J | SUV |
| Construction | Unibody | Body-on-frame |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seating Capacity | 2+3 | 2+3+2 |
| Length (mm) | 4605 | 4785 |
| Width (mm) | 1845 | 1815 |
| Height (mm) | 1715 | 1805 |
| Wheelbase (mm) | 2660 | 2800 |
| Fuel Tank (L) | 60 | 68 |
| Exterior Colors | — | White Diamond, Jet Black Mica, Blade Silver Metallic |
| Curb Weight (kg) | — | 1910 |
| Chassis, Wheels & Brakes | ||
| Front Suspension | MacPherson w/ Coil Spring | Double Wishbone w/ Coil Spring |
| Rear Suspension | Double Wishbone w/ Coil Spring | Multi-Link w/ Coil Spring |
| Front Wheels | 17x7.0 | 18 |
| Rear Wheels | 17x7.0 | 18 |
| Front Tires | 225/65 R17 | 265/60/R18 |
| Rear Tires | 225/65 R17 | 265/60/R18 |
| Front Brakes | Disc | Disc |
| Rear Brakes | Disc | Disc |
| Steering Column | tilt | Tilt & Telescopic |
| Tire Pressure Monitoring | No | Yes |
| Differential Lock | Yes | No |
| Steering Type | — | Hydraulic |
| Safety | ||
| Anti-lock Braking (ABS) | Yes | Yes |
| Electronic Brakeforce Distribution | Yes | Yes |
| Brake Assist | Yes | Yes |
| Parking Sensors | Yes | Yes |
| Stability Control | Yes | Yes |
| Traction Control | Yes | No |
| Vehicle Dynamic Control | No | No |
| Forward Collision Mitigation | No | No |
| Blind Spot Warning | No | No |
| Hill Start Assist | Yes | Yes |
| Hill Descent Control | Yes | Yes |
| Auto Stop/Start | No | No |
| Driver Airbag | Yes | Yes |
| Knee Airbag | Yes | No |
| Passenger Airbag | Yes | Yes |
| Front Curtain Airbags | Yes | Yes |
| Rear Curtain Airbags | No | Yes |
| Rear Side Airbags | No | Yes |
| Engine Immobilizer | Yes | Yes |
| Security Alarm | Yes | Yes |
| Door Locking | Central Locking | Central Locking |
| Comfort & Convenience | ||
| Air Conditioning | Automatic Climate Control | Dual Zone Automatic Climate Control |
| Rear A/C Vents | Yes | Yes |
| Seat Material | Leather | Leather |
| Parking Brake | Manual | EPB |
| Key Type | Smart Entry | Keyless Entry |
| Push-Button Start | Yes | Yes |
| Cruise Control | Yes | Yes |
| Multi-Info Display | Yes | Yes |
| Paddle Shifters | No | Yes |
| Reverse Camera | No | Yes |
| Auto Headlights | Yes | No |
| Power Windows | Yes | Yes |
| Power Seats | No | Yes |
| Remote Trunk Release | No | No |
| Eco Mode | Yes | No |
| Antenna | yes | yes |
| Infotainment & Audio | ||
| Speakers | 6 | 6 |
| Touchscreen | Yes | Yes |
| Navigation | Yes | Yes |
| Bluetooth | Yes | Yes |
| Apple CarPlay | No | Yes |
| Android Auto | No | Yes |
| USB | Yes | Yes |
| AUX Input | Yes | No |
| AM/FM Radio | Yes | Yes |
| CD Player | Yes | No |
| DVD Player | Yes | No |
| MP3 Playback | Yes | No |
| iPod Support | Yes | Yes |
| SD Card Slot | No | No |
| Lighting | ||
| Headlights | LED | LED |
| Fog Lights | Yes | Yes |
| Daytime Running Lights | Yes | Yes |
Toyota Rav-4 2.5 Premium 4×4 AT (White Pearl) (2016) vs Mitsubishi Montero Sport 2.4L GLS 2WD 8AT (2020): which should you buy?
For a Filipino buyer weighing cost, performance and practicality, the Mitsubishi Montero Sport 2.4L GLS 2WD 8AT edges out the older Toyota RAV4 2.5 Premium. The Montero Sport is about ₱222,000 cheaper (₱1,927,000 vs ₱2,149,000) and offers a turbo‑charged diesel engine that delivers 181 PS and a massive 430 Nm of torque, far surpassing the RAV4’s 180 PS and 233 Nm. This torque advantage translates to stronger low‑end pull, useful for highway merging and carrying heavy loads. While the RAV4 provides all‑wheel drive and a slightly longer wheelbase (4605 mm), its naturally aspirated gasoline engine is less torquey and its price is higher. Both have five doors and similar seating, but the Montero Sport’s body‑on‑frame construction may be perceived as more rugged for rougher roads, whereas the RAV4’s unibody crossover design offers a smoother ride. If you prioritize lower purchase price, higher torque, and a more utilitarian build for occasional off‑road or heavy‑load use, the Montero Sport is the better choice. If you need permanent AWD for rainy city driving and prefer a newer‑looking unibody crossover, the RAV4 could still appeal, but it comes at a premium cost.
Frequently asked questions
Which vehicle is cheaper?
The Mitsubishi Montero Sport 2.4L GLS 2WD 8AT is priced at ₱1,927,000, which is ₱222,000 less than the Toyota RAV4 2.5 Premium priced at ₱2,149,000.
Which has more power and torque?
Both produce similar peak power (RAV4 180 PS, Montero Sport 181 PS), but the Montero Sport’s turbo‑diesel delivers far more torque at 430 Nm versus the RAV4’s 233 Nm.
Is the RAV4’s AWD better for daily commuting?
The RAV4 offers permanent AWD, which can improve traction in rainy Filipino roads, though the Montero Sport’s RWD with high torque may still handle city traffic well, especially with its lower price.
What are the key practical differences?
The RAV4 is a unibody crossover with a 5‑door layout and 2+3 seating, while the Montero Sport is a body‑on‑frame midsize SUV, also 5‑door, offering a more rugged build and better low‑end torque for hauling, at a lower price point.