Mitsubishi Space Runner 1999 vs Volkswagen Sharan 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Mitsubishi Space Runner) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Volkswagen Sharan) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 178 NM | 202 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 19.3 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Runner is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Space Runner engine produces 46 HP more power than Volkswagen Sharan, but torque is 24 NM less than Volkswagen Sharan. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Space Runner reaches 100 km/h speed 8.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 6.6 | |
|
The Volkswagen Sharan is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi Space Runner consumes 2.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Sharan, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Space Runner could require 390 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 1130 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 1380 km on highway | ||
| Volkswagen Sharan 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: | 520'000 km | 600'000 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 Volkswagen Sharan engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 45 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Outlander, Mitsubishi Space Wagon | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Audi A4, Volkswagen Polo, Seat Toledo, Seat Cordoba | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Space Runner might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.29 m | 4.62 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.73 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Runner is smaller. Mitsubishi Space Runner is 33 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Sharan, 11 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Space Runner is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Runner is 1.3 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Sharan, which means Mitsubishi Space Runner can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`880 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Runner has
|
Volkswagen Sharan has
| |