Toyota Picnic 1996 vs Mitsubishi Space Wagon 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 13 seconds | |
| Toyota Picnic engine produces 22 HP less power than Mitsubishi Space Wagon, whereas torque is 47 NM less than Mitsubishi Space Wagon. Despite less power, Toyota Picnic reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.0 | 9.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.1 l/100km | 10.4 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Picnic is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota Picnic consumes 0.8 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 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Picnic consumes 1.3 litres less 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 | 640 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 780 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 600 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. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 180 litres | 240 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1840 litres | no data | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Wagon has more luggage space. Toyota Picnic has 60 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Space Wagon. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`010 | 2`100 | |
| 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 (€): | 2800 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 7.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Picnic has
|
Mitsubishi Space Wagon has
| |