Mitsubishi eK Active

Mitsubishi eK Active: which 0.7 AT to choose (2004–2006)

If you are choosing a Mitsubishi eK Active, there is only one generation (May 2004–August 2006) and only one body type: Microvan. The catalogue lists four versions, all named 0.7 AT. They share a 657 cm³ Gasoline engine, Automatic 4-speed gearbox, 30 L tank and 165 mm ground clearance.

If you are choosing a Mitsubishi eK Active, there is only one generation (May 2004–August 2006) and only one body type: Microvan. The catalogue lists four versions, all named 0.7 AT. They share a 657 cm³ Gasoline engine, Automatic 4-speed gearbox, 30 L tank and 165 mm ground clearance. The buying decision is therefore not “which generation” but which 0.7 AT mix of power, boost and drive: 50 hp FWD, 50 hp AWD, 64 hp FWD Turbo, or 64 hp AWD Turbo.

Generations: what actually changes between the four 0.7 AT cars

There is 1 generation. Restyling is not listed. Production of every listed version starts 2004-05-01 and stops 2006-08-31. Body is Microvan throughout. Modification count is 4.

Because generation, years, body, gearbox type and displacement do not change, generation-to-generation arithmetic is empty: nothing in the data shows a later eK Active with a different kerb weight band, a different tank, or a different clearance. All of the spread is inside this generation.

Spread that does exist, from the numbers:

• Power: 50 hp (37 kW) or 64 hp (47 kW). Difference: +14 hp / +10 kW, which is +28% on the 50 hp figure.
• Torque: 62 Nm or 93 Nm. Difference: +31 Nm, +50%.
• Boost: No on both 50 hp cars; Turbo on both 64 hp cars.
• Drive: FWD or AWD, one of each power level.
• Kerb weight: 840 kg (lightest) to 910 kg (heaviest). Spread: 70 kg, +8.3% over 840 kg.
• Fuel grade in the data: 95 on three versions; 92 only on the 64 hp FWD Turbo 0.7 AT.
• Compression: 10.2 (No boost) vs 8.5 (Turbo).

Wheel sizes, 0–100, top speed, fuel use, CO₂, eco class and gross weight are not measured on any version, so they cannot break the tie.

Engines and specs

Exact catalogue names are all 0.7 AT. Distinguish them by horsepower and drive, as in the table.

Shared engine geometry on all four 0.7 AT rows: Front, transverse; Distributed injection (multi-point); bore × stroke 65 × 66. Peak rpm differs with boost: 50 hp cars make power at 6500 rpm and torque at 4000 rpm; 64 hp Turbo cars make power at 6000 rpm and torque at 3500 rpm.

Power per litre (hp ÷ 657 cm³, expressed per litre):

• 50 hp 0.7 AT: 50 ÷ 0.657 ≈ 76.1 hp/L
• 64 hp 0.7 AT: 64 ÷ 0.657 ≈ 97.4 hp/L

The Turbo pair therefore extracts about 21.3 hp more per litre than the No-boost pair from the same 657 cm³.

Performance, mpg and reliability figures that are not measured

0–100 km/h: not measured on all four 0.7 AT versions. Top speed: not measured on all four. City, highway and combined fuel consumption: not measured on all four. CO₂: not measured. Eco class: not measured.

There is no mpg number in the data to rank the 50 hp cars against the 64 hp cars, and no measured acceleration to prove the 14 hp / 31 Nm gap on the road. Weight-per-horsepower (below) is the only performance-related ranking that can be calculated from what was recorded.

Problems and reliability are not in this dataset; they are not used to pick a version here.

Dimensions, weight, tank and ground clearance

Ground clearance is 165 mm on every 0.7 AT. Tank is 30 L on every 0.7 AT. Wheel sizes: not measured on all four. Gross weight: not measured on all four.

Kerb weight, the only mass figure given:

Chassis items that do not differ in the data: Independent, spring front; Semi-independent, springorts hélicoïdaux, sem rear; Ventilated disc front brakes; Drum rear brakes.

Weight arithmetic that matters for the choice:

• AWD vs FWD at 50 hp: 890 − 840 = +50 kg for AWD.
• AWD vs FWD at 64 hp: 910 − 860 = +50 kg for AWD.
• Turbo vs No boost on FWD: 860 − 840 = +20 kg for Turbo.
• Turbo vs No boost on AWD: 910 − 890 = +20 kg for Turbo.
• Lightest vs heaviest: 910 − 840 = +70 kg (64 hp AWD Turbo vs 50 hp FWD).

AWD is a 50 kg step at either power. Turbo is a 20 kg step at either drive. Those two steps add, they do not overlap.

Which version to choose

Prices are not in the data, so “what the extra money buys” can only mean what the extra kilograms, horsepower and newton-metres buy relative to the lightest 0.7 AT.

Default pick: 0.7 AT 50 hp, FWD

840 kg, 50 hp, 62 Nm, No boost, Automatic 4, FWD, 95, 16.8 kg/hp. It is the lightest car in the list. If FWD is enough and you do not need the Turbo figures, this is the version that carries the least mass for the same 657 cm³, same 4-speed Automatic, same 165 mm clearance and same 30 L tank.

If you want AWD and stay at 50 hp: 0.7 AT 50 hp, AWD

Same 50 hp / 62 Nm / No / 95 engine as the FWD 50 hp car. You add 50 kg (890 kg, 17.8 kg/hp). That is the worst kg-per-hp ratio of the four: +1.0 kg/hp versus the FWD 50 hp 0.7 AT, and +4.4 kg/hp versus the FWD Turbo. What you buy with those 50 kg is AWD, not more power. Peak rpm stays 6500 / 4000.

Choose this 0.7 AT when drive is the requirement and 64 hp is not. Do not choose it expecting a different tank, clearance or gearbox: those match the FWD 50 hp car.

If you want the stronger engine and FWD: 0.7 AT 64 hp, FWD, Turbo

64 hp, 93 Nm, Turbo, Automatic 4, FWD, 92, 860 kg, 13.4 kg/hp.

Versus the 50 hp FWD 0.7 AT:

• +14 hp and +31 Nm
• +20 kg
• kg/hp improves from 16.8 to 13.4 (−3.4 kg/hp, about 20% less mass per horsepower)
• power per litre rises from 76.1 to 97.4 hp/L
• torque peak moves from 4000 rpm to 3500 rpm; power peak from 6500 to 6000
• compression 8.5 instead of 10.2
• fuel grade in the data is 92, not 95 — the only 0.7 AT specified that way

This is the best kg-per-hp number in the generation. The 20 kg Turbo penalty is smaller than the 50 kg AWD penalty. If the choice is “more output on the same FWD layout,” this 0.7 AT is the one the arithmetic supports. 0–100 and mpg remain not measured, so the 28% power and 50% torque gaps are the measured claim, not a timed sprint.

If you want both Turbo and AWD: 0.7 AT 64 hp, AWD, Turbo

64 hp, 93 Nm, Turbo, Automatic 4, AWD, 95, 910 kg, 14.2 kg/hp.

Versus the 50 hp FWD baseline you take both steps: +20 kg Turbo + 50 kg AWD = +70 kg, plus the same +14 hp / +31 Nm as the FWD Turbo. Versus the FWD Turbo 0.7 AT you pay the same +50 kg AWD step seen at 50 hp, and you change fuel grade from 92 to 95. Versus the 50 hp AWD 0.7 AT you pay +20 kg and gain the Turbo output.

Kg per hp (14.2) is better than either 50 hp car (16.8 and 17.8) and worse than the FWD Turbo (13.4). You are not buying a different generation, body, tank or clearance; you are buying Turbo and AWD on the heaviest kerb weight in the set.

Direct pairs (same name, different job)

1. Two 50 hp 0.7 AT cars (No boost): FWD 840 kg vs AWD 890 kg. Engine, gearbox, fuel 95, 62 Nm, 10.2 compression — identical in the data. The only measured difference is 50 kg and FWD vs AWD. Pick FWD unless AWD is the requirement.

2. Two 64 hp 0.7 AT cars (Turbo): FWD 860 kg / 92 vs AWD 910 kg / 95. Engine output matches (64 hp, 93 Nm, 8.5 compression). Again +50 kg for AWD, plus the fuel-grade split. Pick FWD Turbo for the lowest kg/hp; pick AWD Turbo only for AWD.

3. Two FWD 0.7 AT cars: 50 hp No 840 kg vs 64 hp Turbo 860 kg. +20 kg buys +14 hp / +31 Nm. That is 1.4 kg per extra horsepower on the FWD line (20 ÷ 14).

4. Two AWD 0.7 AT cars: 50 hp No 890 kg vs 64 hp Turbo 910 kg. Same +20 kg for the same +14 hp / +31 Nm (again 1.4 kg per extra hp), with fuel 95 on both AWD rows.

What you cannot use to decide

• Generation: there is only 1, years and body do not split the four cars.
• 0–100, top speed, mpg: not measured.
• Wheels and gross weight: not measured.
• Price: not in the data.
• A unique version name: all four are 0.7 AT; specify 50 vs 64 hp and FWD vs AWD when you search or compare listings.

Short ranking from the numbers only: lightest and simplest — 0.7 AT 50 hp FWD; best kg/hp — 0.7 AT 64 hp FWD Turbo; AWD at lowest extra mass — 0.7 AT 50 hp AWD (+50 kg, no extra hp); maximum combination — 0.7 AT 64 hp AWD Turbo (910 kg, 64 hp, 93 Nm).