Renault Kangoo 2003 vs Mitsubishi Space Star 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 13.1 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Star is a more dynamic driving. Renault Kangoo engine produces 3 HP less power than Mitsubishi Space Star, whereas torque is 2 NM less than Mitsubishi Space Star. Due to the lower power, Renault Kangoo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.2 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Space Star is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Kangoo consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Star, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Kangoo could require 210 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Kangoo consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Star. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 710 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 760 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. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 27 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Renault Megane, Dacia Duster, 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. | |||
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: | 550 litres | 370 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2500 litres | 1370 litres | |
|
Renault Kangoo has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Renault Kangoo has 180 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Space Star. 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 1130 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 (kg): | 1`850 | 1`690 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Kangoo has
|
Mitsubishi Space Star has
| |