Mitsubishi Space Star 1998 vs Mitsubishi Space Runner 1991
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 86 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 117 NM | 162 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.4 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Runner is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Space Star engine produces 34 HP less power than Mitsubishi Space Runner, whereas torque is 45 NM less than Mitsubishi Space Runner. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Space Star reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 8.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 8.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Space Star is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Runner, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Space Star over 15,000 km in a year you can save 300 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Runner. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 800 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 840 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Space Star gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 480'000 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 Mitsubishi Space Runner engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 27 years | 23 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Carisma, Mitsubishi Colt | Used also on Mitsubishi Space Wagon | |
| 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 Mitsubishi Space Runner 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: | 4.03 m | 4.27 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.66 m | |
| Mitsubishi Space Star is 24 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Space Runner, width is practically the same , while the height of Mitsubishi Space Star is 14 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 370 litres | 676 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1370 litres | 1498 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Runner has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Space Star has 306 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Space Runner. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Space Runner (by 128 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.6 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Star is 0.6 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Space Runner, which means Mitsubishi Space Star can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`655 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Star has
|
Mitsubishi Space Runner has
| |