Mitsubishi Space Runner 1991 vs Mitsubishi Space Wagon 1992
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 133 HP | |
| Torque: | 162 NM | 176 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Space Runner engine produces 13 HP less power than Mitsubishi Space Wagon, whereas torque is 14 NM less than Mitsubishi Space Wagon. Despite less power, Mitsubishi Space Runner reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.8 | 9.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.8 l/100km | 9.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Space Runner is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Space Runner consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Wagon, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Space Runner over 15,000 km in a year you can save 150 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Space Runner consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Wagon. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 610 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Space Runner 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: | 480'000 km | 520'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 23 years | 46 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Space Wagon | 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: | 4.27 m | 4.50 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.66 m | 1.58 m | |
| Mitsubishi Space Runner is 23 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Space Wagon, width is practically the same , while the height of Mitsubishi Space Runner is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 5 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 676 litres | 212 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 212 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 676 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1498 litres | 1714 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Space Wagon (by 216 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Runner is 0.8 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Space Wagon, which means Mitsubishi Space Runner can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`980 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 600 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.8/10 | 7.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Runner has
|
Mitsubishi Space Wagon has
| |