Mitsubishi Space Wagon 1999 vs Ford Galaxy 2003
| 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 (Ford Galaxy) 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 | 130 HP | |
| Torque: | 225 NM | 310 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 12.8 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Wagon is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Space Wagon engine produces 20 HP more power than Ford Galaxy, but torque is 85 NM less than Ford Galaxy. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Space Wagon reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.3 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Galaxy is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Space Wagon consumes 3.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Galaxy, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Space Wagon could require 465 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 Ford Galaxy. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 1120 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 1340 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 970 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Galaxy 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 | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.73 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Wagon is smaller. Mitsubishi Space Wagon is 4 cm shorter than the Ford Galaxy, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Space Wagon is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | no data | |
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 240 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
240 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Wagon is 0.1 metres less than that of the Ford Galaxy. | |||
| 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 Ford Galaxy has serious deffects in 70 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Space Wagon, so Mitsubishi Space Wagon quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Wagon has
|
Ford Galaxy has
| |