Smart ForFour 2014 vs Mitsubishi Space Star 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 0.9 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 71 HP | |
| Torque: | 136 NM | 88 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.9 seconds | 13.6 seconds | |
|
Smart ForFour is more dynamic to drive. Smart ForFour engine produces 19 HP more power than Mitsubishi Space Star, whereas torque is 48 NM more than Mitsubishi Space Star. Thanks to more power Smart ForFour reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.2 | 4.2 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 28 litres | 35 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 770 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
| 430 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Space Star gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mitsubishi Space Star) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Smart ForFour) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Renault Clio, Dacia Logan, Renault Captur, Nissan Micra | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Smart ForFour might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.49 m | 3.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.51 m | |
|
Smart ForFour is smaller, but higher. Smart ForFour is 31 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Space Star, width is practically the same , while the height of Smart ForFour is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 184 litres | 235 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
975 litres | 912 litres | |
| Smart ForFour has 51 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Space Star. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Smart ForFour (by 63 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 8.7 meters | 9.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForFour is 0.5 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Space Star, which means Smart ForFour can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`450 | 1`290 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 8000 | 6800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForFour has
|
Mitsubishi Space Star has
| |