Mitsubishi Space Runner 1999 vs Honda CR-V 1997
| Body: | Minivan / MPV | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 128 HP | |
| Torque: | 225 NM | 182 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Space Runner engine produces 22 HP more power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 43 NM more than Honda CR-V. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Space Runner reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.0 | 10.1 | |
|
The Mitsubishi Space Runner is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi Space Runner consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Space Runner over 15,000 km in a year you can save 165 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 570 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 670 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi Space Runner gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Honda CR-V 1997: Car has Honda`s real-time four-wheel drive system, which sends torque to the front wheels under normal conditions. Multi-plate clutch transfers torque to rear axle when wheel slip is detected (pressure is applied to clutch by dual pump system). To allow ABS to work smoothly, the clutch is also disengaged during braking. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 460'000 km | 480'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 39 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Space Wagon, Mitsubishi Galant | 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. Mitsubishi Space Runner might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mitsubishi Space Runner 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: | 4.29 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.68 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Runner is smaller. Mitsubishi Space Runner is 24 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Space Runner is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 375 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | 670 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Runner has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Mitsubishi Space Runner has 55 litres more trunk space than the Honda CR-V. The Honda CR-V may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Space Runner (by 1130 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Runner is 0.2 metres less than that of the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`920 | 1`900 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Runner has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |