Chrysler Grand Voyager 1996 vs Mitsubishi Space Wagon 1992
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.3 Petrol | 2.0 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 | 133 HP | |
| Torque: | 275 NM | 176 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.7 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
| Chrysler Grand Voyager engine produces 23 HP more power than Mitsubishi Space Wagon, whereas torque is 99 NM more than Mitsubishi Space Wagon. Despite the higher power, Chrysler Grand Voyager reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 13.3 | 9.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.8 l/100km | 9.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Space Wagon is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chrysler Grand Voyager consumes 3.5 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 525 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler Grand Voyager consumes 3.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Wagon. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 560 km in combined cycle | 610 km in combined cycle | |
| 700 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Space Wagon gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 520'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 45 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Chrysler Voyager, Dodge Grand Caravan, Chrysler Concorde | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Outlander | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.07 m | 4.50 m | |
| Width: | 1.92 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.58 m | |
|
Chrysler Grand Voyager is larger. Chrysler Grand Voyager is 57 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Space Wagon, 22 cm wider, while the height of Chrysler Grand Voyager is 16 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 671 litres | 212 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 212 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 671 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
4880 litres | 1714 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chrysler Grand Voyager (by 3166 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 | 1`980 | |
| 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
| |