Renault Kangoo 2003 vs Mitsubishi Space Star 2001
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 95 HP | 98 HP | |
| Torque: | 148 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.4 seconds | 14.5 seconds | |
| Renault Kangoo engine produces 3 HP less power than Mitsubishi Space Star, whereas torque is 2 NM less than Mitsubishi Space Star. Despite less power, Renault Kangoo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.9 l/100km | 8.6 l/100km | |
|
By specification Renault Kangoo consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Star, which means that by driving the Renault Kangoo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Renault Kangoo consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Star. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 830 km on highway | ||
| 560 km with real consumption | 630 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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 27 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Dacia Duster, Renault Megane, Nissan Almera, Dacia Logan | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | |
| 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: | no | yes | |
| 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: | 4.00 m | 4.03 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.83 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Renault Kangoo is smaller, but higher. Renault Kangoo is 3 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Space Star, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Renault Kangoo is 31 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 650 litres | 370 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
2600 litres | 1370 litres | |
|
Renault Kangoo has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, The Mitsubishi Space Star may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Kangoo (by 1230 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 9.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Kangoo is 1.2 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Space Star, which means Renault Kangoo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`620 kg | 1`690 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`065 kg | 1`235 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 555 kg | 455 kg | |
| Renault Kangoo load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 18 procentiem more than Mitsubishi Space Star. Therefore, Renault Kangoo is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Kangoo has
|
Mitsubishi Space Star has
| |