Mitsubishi Space Star 2002 vs Hyundai Matrix 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.5 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: | 115 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 265 NM | 235 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 14.3 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Star is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Space Star engine produces 13 HP more power than Hyundai Matrix, whereas torque is 30 NM more than Hyundai Matrix. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Space Star reaches 100 km/h speed 3.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.9 l/100km | 6.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Space Star is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Hyundai Matrix, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Space Star could require 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Hyundai Matrix. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 1190 km on highway | 1190 km on highway | ||
| 930 km with real consumption | 870 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Volvo V40, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Carisma | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Hyundai Getz, Hyundai Accent, Kia RIO, Kia Cerato | |
| 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 Hyundai Matrix 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. | |||
| Mitsubishi Space Star 2002 1.9 engine: Long-lasting and fuel-efficient engine. Maintaining oil change and maintenance intervals is essential for a long engine life, as poor or untimely oil changes can result in turbine and oil pump damage, followed ... More about Mitsubishi Space Star 2002 1.9 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.05 m | 4.02 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.64 m | |
| Mitsubishi Space Star is 3 cm longer than the Hyundai Matrix, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Space Star is 12 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 370 litres | 354 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1370 litres | 1284 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Space Star has 16 litres more trunk space than the Hyundai Matrix. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Space Star (by 86 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`730 | 1`840 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Star has
|
Hyundai Matrix has
| |