Mitsubishi Space Runner 1991 vs Mitsubishi Space Star 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 86 HP | |
| Torque: | 162 NM | 117 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 13.4 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Runner is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Space Runner engine produces 34 HP more power than Mitsubishi Space Star, whereas torque is 45 NM more than Mitsubishi Space Star. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Space Runner reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.8 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.8 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Space Star is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Space Runner consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Star, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Space Runner could require 300 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Space Runner consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Star. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Space Star gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mitsubishi Space Runner engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 23 years | 27 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Space Wagon | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Carisma, Mitsubishi Colt | |
| 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: | 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: | 4.27 m | 4.03 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.66 m | 1.52 m | |
| Mitsubishi Space Runner is 24 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Space Star, width is practically the same , while the height of Mitsubishi Space Runner is 14 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 676 litres | 370 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1498 litres | 1370 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Runner has more luggage capacity. Mitsubishi Space Runner has 306 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Space Star. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Space Runner (by 128 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 9.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Runner is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Space Star, which means Mitsubishi Space Runner can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`655 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 600 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Runner has
|
Mitsubishi Space Star has
| |