Mitsubishi Space Runner 1995 vs Seat Alhambra 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 82 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 172 NM | 202 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17.8 seconds | 19.3 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Space Runner engine produces 8 HP less power than Seat Alhambra, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Seat Alhambra. Despite less power, Mitsubishi Space Runner reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.1 | 6.5 | |
|
The Seat Alhambra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi Space Runner consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Seat Alhambra, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Space Runner could require 240 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 1320 km on highway | ||
| Seat Alhambra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.27 m | 4.62 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.66 m | 1.73 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Runner is smaller. Mitsubishi Space Runner is 35 cm shorter than the Seat Alhambra, 11 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Space Runner is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 676 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1498 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Runner is 1.5 metres less than that of the Seat Alhambra, which means Mitsubishi Space Runner can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Runner has
|
Seat Alhambra has
| |