Mitsubishi Space Wagon 1992 vs Toyota Picnic 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 133 HP | 128 HP | |
| Torque: | 176 NM | 178 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
Toyota Picnic is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Space Wagon engine produces 5 HP more power than Toyota Picnic, but torque is 2 NM less than Toyota Picnic. Despite the higher power, Mitsubishi Space Wagon reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.8 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.7 l/100km | 9.1 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Picnic is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Space Wagon consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Picnic, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Space Wagon could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Space Wagon consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Picnic. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 660 km in combined cycle | |
| 770 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Picnic gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 45 years | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Outlander | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Toyota Avensis, Toyota Carina E, Toyota Hiace | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mitsubishi Space Wagon engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.50 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.58 m | 1.62 m | |
| Mitsubishi Space Wagon is 3 cm shorter than the Toyota Picnic, width is practically the same , while the height of Mitsubishi Space Wagon is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 6 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 212 litres | 180 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 212 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 180 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1714 litres | 1840 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Toyota Picnic (by 126 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`980 | 2`010 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Toyota Picnic has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Space Wagon has serious deffects in 80 percent more cases than Toyota Picnic, so Toyota Picnic quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 2200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.5/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Wagon has
|
Toyota Picnic has
| |