Mitsubishi Space Star 2002 vs Mercedes C class 2000
| Body: | Minivan / MPV | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 2.1 Diesel | |
| 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: | 102 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 215 NM | 315 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
|
Mercedes C class is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Space Star engine produces 41 HP less power than Mercedes C class, whereas torque is 100 NM less than Mercedes C class. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Space Star reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 6.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Space Star is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Space Star over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 1190 km on highway | 1310 km on highway | ||
| 940 km with real consumption | 980 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mitsubishi Space Star) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Mercedes C class) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Volvo V40, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Carisma | Used also on Mercedes E klase | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Space Star might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mercedes C class 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 | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Star is smaller, but higher. Mitsubishi Space Star is 48 cm shorter than the Mercedes C class, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Space Star is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 370 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1370 litres | no data | |
| 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 Mercedes C class, which means Mitsubishi Space Star can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`730 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Star has
|
Mercedes C klase has
| |