Mitsubishi Space Star 2000 vs Renault Kangoo 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 122 HP | 95 HP | |
| Torque: | 174 NM | 148 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.4 seconds | 12.4 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Space Star engine produces 27 HP more power than Renault Kangoo, whereas torque is 26 NM more than Renault Kangoo. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.3 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.6 l/100km | 8.9 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Kangoo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Kangoo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Space Star could require 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Space Star consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Kangoo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km on highway | 790 km on highway | ||
| 570 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Space Star gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 560'000 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 Renault Kangoo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 23 years | 27 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volvo V40, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Carisma, Mitsubishi Galant | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Dacia Duster, Renault Megane, Nissan Almera, Dacia Logan | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Kangoo 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. | |||
| Renault Kangoo 2003 1.6 engine: The Renault K4M 1.6 16V is one of the most durable and well-known engines in its class. It is simple, widely used, and generally not demanding, with many well-maintained examples reaching 400,000–500,000 km. The engine is not especially modern or economical by current standards, but it has a ... More about Renault Kangoo 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.03 m | 4.00 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.83 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Star is larger, but lower. Mitsubishi Space Star is 3 cm longer than the Renault Kangoo, 6 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Space Star is 31 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 370 litres | 650 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1370 litres | 2600 litres | |
|
Renault Kangoo has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, This could mean that the Mitsubishi Space Star uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Kangoo (by 1230 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.6 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Star is 1.2 metres less than that of the Renault Kangoo, which means Mitsubishi Space Star can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`730 kg | 1`620 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`240 kg | 1`065 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 490 kg | 555 kg | |
| Mitsubishi Space Star load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 13 procentiem less than Renault Kangoo. Therefore, Renault Kangoo is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Star has
|
Renault Kangoo has
| |