1999 Mitsubishi Space Runner MPG is between 19 MPG and 32 MPG depending on engine:
The 1999 Mitsubishi Space Runner MPG to weight ratio is shown in the graph:
We calculated that 1999 Mitsubishi Space Runner MPG is up to 25% worse than the world average consumption.
| Vehicle | Consumption (city / highway) | Consumption to weight ratio | Difference from world average consumption | Driving range (full tank) | Consumption per passenger |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.4 GDI |
20
/
32 MPG
(11.9 / 7.3 L per 100 km) |
1.5 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 22% worse |
311—559 miles
(500—900 km) |
1.9 L per 100 km / person |
| 2.0 |
19
/
31 MPG
(12.2 / 7.5 L per 100 km) |
1.3 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 25% worse |
311—497 miles
(500—800 km) |
2 L per 100 km / person |
| Vehicle | 2.4 GDI |
|---|---|
| Consumption (city / highway) |
20
/
32 MPG
(11.9 / 7.3 L per 100 km) |
| Consumption to weight ratio | 1.5 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
| Difference from world average consumption | 22% worse |
| Driving range (full tank) | 311—559 miles (500—900 km) |
| Consumption per passenger | 1.9 L per 100 km / person |
| Vehicle | 2.0 |
| Consumption (city / highway) |
19
/
31 MPG
(12.2 / 7.5 L per 100 km) |
| Consumption to weight ratio | 1.3 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
| Difference from world average consumption | 25% worse |
| Driving range (full tank) | 311—497 miles (500—800 km) |
| Consumption per passenger | 2 L per 100 km / person |
1991 Mitsubishi Space Runner MPG is between 19 MPG and 36 MPG depending on engine:
The 1991 Mitsubishi Space Runner MPG to weight ratio is shown in the graph:
We calculated that 1991 Mitsubishi Space Runner MPG is up to 6% better than the world average consumption.
| Vehicle | Consumption (city / highway) | Consumption to weight ratio | Difference from world average consumption | Driving range (full tank) | Consumption per passenger |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.8 |
24
/
35 MPG
(9.8 / 6.8 L per 100 km) |
1.4 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 13% worse |
373—497 miles
(600—800 km) |
1.7 L per 100 km / person |
| 1.8 4x4 |
19
/
29 MPG
(12.5 / 8.2 L per 100 km) |
1.3 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 28% worse |
249—435 miles
(400—700 km) |
2.1 L per 100 km / person |
| 2.0 16V |
22
/
33 MPG
(10.7 / 7.1 L per 100 km) |
1.3 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 22% worse |
311—497 miles
(500—800 km) |
1.9 L per 100 km / person |
| 2.0 TD GLX |
29
/
36 MPG
(8 / 6.5 L per 100 km) |
1.8 L per 100 km to 100 kg | 6% better |
435—497 miles
(700—800 km) |
1.4 L per 100 km / person |
| Vehicle | 1.8 |
|---|---|
| Consumption (city / highway) |
24
/
35 MPG
(9.8 / 6.8 L per 100 km) |
| Consumption to weight ratio | 1.4 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
| Difference from world average consumption | 13% worse |
| Driving range (full tank) | 373—497 miles (600—800 km) |
| Consumption per passenger | 1.7 L per 100 km / person |
| Vehicle | 1.8 4x4 |
| Consumption (city / highway) |
19
/
29 MPG
(12.5 / 8.2 L per 100 km) |
| Consumption to weight ratio | 1.3 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
| Difference from world average consumption | 28% worse |
| Driving range (full tank) | 249—435 miles (400—700 km) |
| Consumption per passenger | 2.1 L per 100 km / person |
| Vehicle | 2.0 16V |
| Consumption (city / highway) |
22
/
33 MPG
(10.7 / 7.1 L per 100 km) |
| Consumption to weight ratio | 1.3 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
| Difference from world average consumption | 22% worse |
| Driving range (full tank) | 311—497 miles (500—800 km) |
| Consumption per passenger | 1.9 L per 100 km / person |
| Vehicle | 2.0 TD GLX |
| Consumption (city / highway) |
29
/
36 MPG
(8 / 6.5 L per 100 km) |
| Consumption to weight ratio | 1.8 L per 100 km to 100 kg |
| Difference from world average consumption | 6% better |
| Driving range (full tank) | 435—497 miles (700—800 km) |
| Consumption per passenger | 1.4 L per 100 km / person |
