Skoda Citigo 2017 vs Mitsubishi Space Star 2016
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.0 (petrol, lPG) | 1.0 - 1.2 (petrol) | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 - 75 HP | 71 - 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 95 - 900 NM | 88 - 106 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.5 - 16.7 seconds | 11.7 - 13.6 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.1 - 4.5 | 4.1 - 4.2 | |
|
On average, the Skoda Citigo petrol engines consume nearly the same amount of fuel per 100 km as Mitsubishi Space Star. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.56 m | 3.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.65 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.51 m | |
|
Skoda Citigo is smaller. Skoda Citigo is 23 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Space Star, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Skoda Citigo is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 251 litres | 235 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 912 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Skoda Citigo has 16 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. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 9.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Citigo is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Space Star, which means Skoda Citigo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`310 | ~ 1`333 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 8400 | 6800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Citigo has
|
Mitsubishi Space Star has
| |