Peugeot 1007 2005 vs Mitsubishi Space Star 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 68 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 265 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.4 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Star is a more dynamic driving. Peugeot 1007 engine produces 47 HP less power than Mitsubishi Space Star, whereas torque is 115 NM less than Mitsubishi Space Star. Due to the lower power, Peugeot 1007 reaches 100 km/h speed 4.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.4 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 4.7 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Peugeot 1007 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Peugeot 1007 consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Star, which means that by driving the Peugeot 1007 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 165 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Peugeot 1007 consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Star. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 900 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km with real consumption | 910 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Space Star gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Citroen Xsara, Citroen C3, Peugeot 206, Citroen C2 | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Volvo V40, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Carisma | |
| 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: | yes | no | |
| The Peugeot 1007 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: | 3.73 m | 4.05 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Peugeot 1007 is smaller, but higher. Peugeot 1007 is 32 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Space Star, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Peugeot 1007 is 10 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 154 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1192 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Peugeot 1007 is 0.3 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Space Star. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`582 | 1`300 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Peugeot 1007 has
|
Mitsubishi Space Star has
| |