Suzuki Swift 2013 vs Mitsubishi Space Star 2016
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 94 HP | 71 HP | |
| Torque: | 118 NM | 88 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.4 seconds | 13.6 seconds | |
|
Suzuki Swift is more dynamic to drive. Suzuki Swift engine produces 23 HP more power than Mitsubishi Space Star, whereas torque is 30 NM more than Mitsubishi Space Star. Thanks to more power Suzuki Swift reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 4.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 5.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Space Star is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Suzuki Swift consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Star, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Suzuki Swift could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Suzuki Swift consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Space Star. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 35 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 810 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Space Star gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Ground clearance: | 140 mm (5.5 inches) | 150 mm (5.9 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mitsubishi Space Star can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mitsubishi Space Star version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Suzuki Swift engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Suzuki Baleno, Suzuki Ignis | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Suzuki Swift might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.85 m | 3.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.51 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Suzuki Swift is 6 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Space Star, 3 cm wider, while the height of Suzuki Swift is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 211 litres | 235 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
528 litres | 912 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Space Star has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, This could mean that the Suzuki Swift uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Space Star (by 384 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 9.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Suzuki Swift is 1.2 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Space Star, which means Suzuki Swift can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`560 kg | 1`290 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`110 kg | 845 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 450 kg | 445 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 5600 | 4600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Suzuki Swift has
|
Mitsubishi Space Star has
| |