Toyota Picnic 1996 vs Mitsubishi Space Wagon 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 128 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 178 NM | 225 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Wagon is a more dynamic driving. Toyota Picnic engine produces 22 HP less power than Mitsubishi Space Wagon, whereas torque is 47 NM less than Mitsubishi Space Wagon. Due to the lower power, Toyota Picnic reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.0 | 9.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.1 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
By specification Toyota Picnic consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Wagon, which means that by driving the Toyota Picnic over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Toyota Picnic consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Wagon. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 17 years | 40 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Toyota Avensis, Toyota Carina E, Toyota Hiace | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Galant, Mitsubishi Space Runner | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Space Wagon might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mitsubishi Space Wagon 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: | 4.53 m | 4.60 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.65 m | |
|
Toyota Picnic is smaller. Toyota Picnic is 7 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Space Wagon, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Toyota Picnic is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 6 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 180 litres | 240 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 240 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 180 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1840 litres | 240 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Toyota Picnic (by 1600 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`010 | 2`180 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Toyota Picnic has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Space Wagon has serious deffects in 80 percent more cases than Toyota Picnic, so Toyota Picnic quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2200 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 7.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Picnic has
|
Mitsubishi Space Wagon has
| |