Mitsubishi Space Runner 1999 vs Nissan Terrano 1996
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Body: | Minivan / MPV | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual | |
| Mitsubishi Space Runner is available with both manual and automatic gearboxes, whereas Nissan Terrano is available only with manual gearbox. | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Mitsubishi Space Runner is available with front wheel drive, while Nissan Terrano can be equipped with four wheel (4x4) drive. | |||
| Engines: | 2.0 - 2.4 (petrol) | 2.4 - 2.7 (petrol, diesel) | |
| Both cars are available with petrol engines. Nissan Terrano is available also with diesel engines. Diesel engines typically offer better fuel efficiency and higher torque compared to other engine types. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 - 150 HP | 118 - 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 178 - 225 NM | 191 - 278 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 - 13.3 seconds | 14.3 - 16.7 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.0 - 10.1 | 10.5 - 12.3 | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Runner petrol engines consumes on average 2.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than Nissan Terrano. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.29 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.85 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Runner is smaller. Mitsubishi Space Runner is 37 cm shorter than the Nissan Terrano, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Space Runner is 20 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 115 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | 1900 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Mitsubishi Space Runner has 315 litres more trunk space than the Nissan Terrano. The Nissan Terrano may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Terrano (by 100 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Runner is 1 metres less than that of the Nissan Terrano, which means Mitsubishi Space Runner can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`900 | ~ 2`800 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 600 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Runner has
|
Nissan Terrano has
| |