Mitsubishi Space Wagon 1992 vs Chrysler Grand Voyager 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 3.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 133 HP | 156 HP | |
| Torque: | 176 NM | 275 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Space Wagon engine produces 23 HP less power than Chrysler Grand Voyager, whereas torque is 99 NM less than Chrysler Grand Voyager. Despite less power, Mitsubishi Space Wagon reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.8 | 13.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.7 l/100km | 12.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Space Wagon is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Space Wagon consumes 3.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler Grand Voyager, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Space Wagon over 15,000 km in a year you can save 525 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Space Wagon consumes 3.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler Grand Voyager. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 560 km in combined cycle | |
| 770 km on highway | 700 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 580 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Space Wagon 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: | 520'000 km | 560'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 45 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Outlander | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Chrysler Voyager, Dodge Grand Caravan, Chrysler Concorde | |
| 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: | 4.50 m | 5.07 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.92 m | |
| Height: | 1.58 m | 1.74 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Wagon is smaller. Mitsubishi Space Wagon is 57 cm shorter than the Chrysler Grand Voyager, 22 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Space Wagon is 16 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | no data | |
| Trunk capacity: | 212 litres | 671 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 212 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 671 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1714 litres | 4880 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chrysler Grand Voyager (by 3166 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Space Wagon is 1 metres less than that of the Chrysler Grand Voyager, which means Mitsubishi Space Wagon can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`980 | 2`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.5/10 | 7.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Space Wagon has
|
Chrysler Grand Voyager has
| |