Mitsubishi Space Star 2004 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2008
| Body: | Minivan / MPV | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.5 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: | 98 HP | 109 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Space Star engine produces 11 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, but torque is 5 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Space Star reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.1 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Space Star could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 22 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Smart ForFour, Mitsubishi Xpander | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mitsubishi Space Star 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: | 4.05 m | 3.94 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.55 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Star is larger, but slightly lower. Mitsubishi Space Star is 11 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt, 3 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Space Star is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 220 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1032 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Star is 0.4 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Colt, which means Mitsubishi Space Star can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`200 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Star has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |