Mitsubishi Space Wagon 1999 vs Seat Alhambra 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Mitsubishi Space Wagon) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Seat Alhambra) 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. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 225 NM | 310 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 13.7 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Wagon is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Space Wagon engine produces 35 HP more power than Seat Alhambra, but torque is 85 NM less than Seat Alhambra. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Space Wagon reaches 100 km/h speed 3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.3 | 6.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Seat Alhambra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Space Wagon consumes 3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Seat Alhambra, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Space Wagon could require 450 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Space Wagon consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Seat Alhambra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 700 km with real consumption | 970 km with real consumption | ||
| Seat Alhambra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.60 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.76 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Wagon is smaller. Mitsubishi Space Wagon is 3 cm shorter than the Seat Alhambra, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Space Wagon is 11 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | no data | |
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | 256 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 240 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 256 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
240 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Wagon is 0.9 metres less than that of the Seat Alhambra, which means Mitsubishi Space Wagon can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`180 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Mitsubishi Space Wagon has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Seat Alhambra has serious deffects in 105 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Space Wagon, so Mitsubishi Space Wagon quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 2400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Wagon has
|
Seat Alhambra has
| |