Chrysler Grand Voyager 1996 vs Mitsubishi Space Wagon 1999
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.3 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 156 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 275 NM | 225 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.7 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
| Chrysler Grand Voyager engine produces 6 HP more power than Mitsubishi Space Wagon, whereas torque is 50 NM more than Mitsubishi Space Wagon. Despite the higher power, Chrysler Grand Voyager reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 13.3 | 9.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.8 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Space Wagon is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chrysler Grand Voyager consumes 4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Wagon, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler Grand Voyager could require 600 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler Grand Voyager consumes 3.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Wagon. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 560 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 700 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Space Wagon gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 460'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Chrysler Grand Voyager engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 39 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Chrysler Voyager, Dodge Grand Caravan, Chrysler Concorde | 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.07 m | 4.60 m | |
| Width: | 1.92 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.65 m | |
|
Chrysler Grand Voyager is larger. Chrysler Grand Voyager is 47 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Space Wagon, 14 cm wider, while the height of Chrysler Grand Voyager is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 671 litres | 240 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 240 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 671 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
4880 litres | 240 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chrysler Grand Voyager (by 4640 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chrysler Grand Voyager is 1 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Space Wagon, which means Chrysler Grand Voyager can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`500 | 2`180 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.0/10 | 7.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler Grand Voyager has
|
Mitsubishi Space Wagon has
| |