Mitsubishi Space Star 2016 vs Citroen C3 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 71 HP | 82 HP | |
| Torque: | 88 NM | 116 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.6 seconds | 12.3 seconds | |
|
Citroen C3 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Space Star engine produces 11 HP less power than Citroen C3, whereas torque is 28 NM less than Citroen C3. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Space Star reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.2 | 4.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.0 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Space Star is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C3, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Space Star over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 35 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 1280 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen C3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 370'000 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 Citroen C3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Peugeot 308, Citroen C1, Peugeot 2008, Opel Crossland | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Citroen C3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.80 m | 3.94 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.51 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Star is smaller. Mitsubishi Space Star is 15 cm shorter than the Citroen C3, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Space Star is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 235 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
912 litres | no data | |
|
Citroen C3 has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Space Star has 65 litres less trunk space than the Citroen C3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Star is 1 metres less than that of the Citroen C3, which means Mitsubishi Space Star can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`290 | 1`511 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 6800 | 8000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Star has
|
Citroen C3 has
| |