Nissan Micra 2003 vs Mitsubishi Space Star 2002
| Body: | Hatchback | Minivan / MPV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 80 HP | 82 HP | |
| Torque: | 110 NM | 120 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.9 seconds | 14.2 seconds | |
| Nissan Micra engine produces 2 HP less power than Mitsubishi Space Star, whereas torque is 10 NM less than Mitsubishi Space Star. Despite less power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Star, which means that by driving the Nissan Micra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Micra consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Star. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 780 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: | 280'000 km | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 23 years | 27 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Carisma, Mitsubishi Colt | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.72 m | 4.05 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Nissan Micra is smaller, but slightly higher. Nissan Micra is 33 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Space Star, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 371 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
584 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 1.2 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Space Star, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`475 | 1`600 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Mitsubishi Space Star has
| |