Mitsubishi VS Suzuki

In the battle of the compact hatchbacks, the Mitsubishi Space Star and Suzuki Swift each bring their unique strengths to the table. The Space Star stands out with its impressive fuel efficiency and spacious interior, making it an ideal choice for city driving and longer trips alike. On the other hand, the Suzuki Swift offers a sportier driving experience and a more dynamic design, appealing to those who seek performance along with practicality.

Mitsubishi

Suzuki

In the competitive landscape of compact hatchbacks, the Mitsubishi Space Star and Suzuki Swift stand out for their unique blend of styling, economy, and performance. These two vehicles are popular choices for urban dwellers seeking practicality without sacrificing driving pleasure. In this article, we will perform a detailed comparison of the Mitsubishi Space Star and the Suzuki Swift, examining their technical specifications, innovations, and overall efficiency.

Design and Dimensions

Both the Mitsubishi Space Star and Suzuki Swift offer compact dimensions making them great for navigating city streets and fitting into tight parking spots. The Space Star measures 3845 mm in length, 1665 mm in width, and 1505 mm in height, providing a lightweight curb weight starting from 940 kg. On the other hand, the Swift, slightly longer at 3860 mm with a width of 1735 mm, offers a taller profile with heights ranging from 1485 mm to 1510 mm and a heavier curb weight from 1069 kg to 1145 kg. This makes the Swift marginally bulkier, though it does enhance the feeling of stability on the road.

Powertrains and Performance

The Mitsubishi Space Star is powered by a 1.2L three-cylinder petrol engine that produces a modest 71 HP and 102 Nm of torque, available with both manual and CVT automatic transmissions. It is designed primarily for efficiency, with fuel consumption ratings ranging from 4.9 to 5.5 L/100 km and a CO2 output of between 112 and 125 g/km. It can achieve a top speed of 167 km/h and takes around 14.1 seconds to reach 100 km/h.

In contrast, the Suzuki Swift features a slightly more powerful 1.2L MHEV (mild hybrid electric vehicle) engine, delivering 82 HP and 112 Nm of torque, also available with manual and automatic options. It excels in fuel efficiency, with consumption figures as low as 4.4 L/100 km, and CO2 emissions ranging from 98 to 110 g/km. The Swift can reach a maximum speed of 170 km/h and accelerates from 0 to 100 km/h in approximately 12.5 seconds, making it the quicker option of the two.

Interior and Cargo Capacity

Inside, both models are equipped to comfortably accommodate five passengers. The Space Star offers a trunk capacity of 235 L, which can be beneficial for everyday grocery runs or short trips. The Swift, however, leads in this category, offering a larger trunk space of 265 L, making it more versatile for customers needing that additional room.

As for technology and features, both vehicles come with a range of modern infotainment systems, connectivity options, and safety features. The Swift, being a slight newer model, may offer more contemporary tech innovations, particularly in terms of onboard safety systems, like advanced driver assistance and integration with smartphones.

Fuel Efficiency and Emissions

When it comes to ecological considerations, the Swift takes a step ahead, primarily due to its mild hybrid technology, which helps to lower its carbon footprint and enhance fuel efficiency. The Space Star, while still efficient, especially compared to many larger vehicles, exhibits slightly higher emissions and fuel consumption figures.

Conclusion: Which One to Choose?

In summation, both the Mitsubishi Space Star and the Suzuki Swift deliver solid performance and practicality for those seeking a compact hatchback. If fuel efficiency and advanced hybrid technology are your main priorities, the Suzuki Swift shines as the winner. However, if you're looking for a more budget-friendly option that still promises reliability and adequate performance for city driving, the Mitsubishi Space Star is worthy of consideration. Ultimately, the choice between these two models boils down to individual preferences regarding performance, space, and eco-friendliness.