Mitsubishi Colt 1996 vs Mitsubishi Space Star 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 108 NM | 106 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.8 seconds | 12.8 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Star is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 5 HP less power than Mitsubishi Space Star, but torque is 2 NM more than Mitsubishi Space Star. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 4.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.5 l/100km | 5.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Space Star is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 3.9 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 Colt could require 585 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 4.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Star. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 35 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 520 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Space Star gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 320'000 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 Star engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 27 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | 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 Colt might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 3.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.36 m | 1.51 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is larger, but lower. Mitsubishi Colt is 9 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Space Star, 2 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 15 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | 235 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 912 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has 5 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Space Star. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Space Star (by 82 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 9.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.8 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Space Star, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`450 | 1`370 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | 6800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Mitsubishi Space Star has
| |