Seat Alhambra 2000 vs Mitsubishi Space Wagon 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Seat Alhambra) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Mitsubishi Space Wagon) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 310 NM | 225 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.7 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Wagon is a more dynamic driving. Seat Alhambra engine produces 35 HP less power than Mitsubishi Space Wagon, but torque is 85 NM more than Mitsubishi Space Wagon. Due to the lower power, Seat Alhambra reaches 100 km/h speed 3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 9.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.2 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Seat Alhambra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Seat Alhambra consumes 3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Wagon, which means that by driving the Seat Alhambra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 450 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Seat Alhambra consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Wagon. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1110 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Seat Alhambra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.63 m | 4.60 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.65 m | |
|
Seat Alhambra is larger. Seat Alhambra is 3 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Space Wagon, 3 cm wider, while the height of Seat Alhambra is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 256 litres | 240 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 240 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 256 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 240 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Seat Alhambra is 0.9 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Space Wagon, which means Seat Alhambra can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`000 | 2`180 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Space Wagon has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Seat Alhambra has serious deffects in 105 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Space Wagon, so Mitsubishi Space Wagon quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Seat Alhambra has
|
Mitsubishi Space Wagon has
| |