Mitsubishi Space Star 2000 vs Renault Scenic 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 82 HP | 95 HP | |
| Torque: | 120 NM | 127 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.2 seconds | 12.9 seconds | |
|
Renault Scenic is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Space Star engine produces 13 HP less power than Renault Scenic, whereas torque is 7 NM less than Renault Scenic. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Space Star reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 7.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Space Star is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Scenic, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Space Star over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Scenic. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 800 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 780 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 27 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Carisma, Mitsubishi Colt | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Renault Clio, Renault Megane, Renault Modus | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Space Star might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Renault Scenic engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.03 m | 4.17 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.68 m | |
| Mitsubishi Space Star is 14 cm shorter than the Renault Scenic, 2 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Space Star is 16 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 370 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1370 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 9.6 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Star is 1.1 metres less than that of the Renault Scenic, which means Mitsubishi Space Star can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`655 | 1`300 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Star has
|
Renault Scenic has
| |