Mitsubishi Space Runner 1991 vs Chrysler Voyager 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 151 HP | |
| Torque: | 162 NM | 229 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 12 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Space Runner engine produces 31 HP less power than Chrysler Voyager, whereas torque is 67 NM less than Chrysler Voyager. Despite less power, Mitsubishi Space Runner reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.8 | 10.6 | |
|
The Mitsubishi Space Runner is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi Space Runner consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler Voyager, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Space Runner over 15,000 km in a year you can save 270 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 23 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Space Wagon | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Chrysler Grand Voyager, Jeep Cherokee, Dodge Grand Caravan | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Chrysler Voyager 1996 2.4 engine: This engine features a thin-walled cast-iron cylinder block, an aluminum cylinder head with dual overhead camshafts, a timing belt system, two balance shafts, hydraulic lifters, a dual-mass flywheel, and a dampened crankshaft pulley. It has received numerous ... More about Chrysler Voyager 1996 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.27 m | 4.73 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.92 m | |
| Height: | 1.66 m | 1.74 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Runner is smaller. Mitsubishi Space Runner is 46 cm shorter than the Chrysler Voyager, 22 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Space Runner is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 676 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1498 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 11.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Runner is 1.3 metres less than that of the Chrysler Voyager, which means Mitsubishi Space Runner can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`600 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 600 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.8/10 | 7.7/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Runner has
|
Chrysler Voyager has
| |