Mitsubishi Space Star 2016 vs Volkswagen Polo 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.4 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Mitsubishi Space Star) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Volkswagen Polo) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 71 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 88 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.6 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Space Star engine produces 19 HP less power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 142 NM less than Volkswagen Polo. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Space Star reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.2 | 3.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.0 l/100km | 4.9 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Space Star could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 35 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 1320 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 1450 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 910 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Polo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 150 mm (5.9 inches) | 145 mm (5.7 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.80 m | 3.97 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.51 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Star is smaller, but higher. Mitsubishi Space Star is 18 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Polo, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Space Star is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 235 litres | 280 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
912 litres | 952 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Polo has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Space Star has 45 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volkswagen Polo (by 40 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Star is 1.4 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Polo, which means Mitsubishi Space Star can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`290 | 1`670 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 6800 | 6400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Star has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |