Mitsubishi eK Space

Mitsubishi eK Space: Which Version to Buy and Why

The Mitsubishi eK Space choice comes down to three decisions: 49 hp or 64 hp, FWD or AWD, and the original 2014–2016 model or the 2016–2020 restyling. Every version is a Microvan with a 658 cc Gasoline inline 3-cylinder engine, a Variable gearbox, a 30-litre tank and 150 mm of ground clearance.

The Mitsubishi eK Space choice comes down to three decisions: 49 hp or 64 hp, FWD or AWD, and the original 2014–2016 model or the 2016–2020 restyling. Every version is a Microvan with a 658 cc Gasoline inline 3-cylinder engine, a Variable gearbox, a 30-litre tank and 150 mm of ground clearance. The 64 hp turbo versions offer 15 hp and 42 Nm more than the 49 hp versions, while AWD adds between 50 and 51 kg compared with the equivalent FWD model. On the available figures, the 64 hp FWD version provides the strongest power-to-weight result; the 49 hp FWD is the lightest choice.

Mitsubishi eK Space generations compared

The eK Space data covers one generation in two phases rather than two distinct generations. The original 1 generation ran from February 2014 to November 2016. It was a Microvan offered in four versions: 49 hp with FWD, 49 hp with AWD, 64 hp with FWD, and 64 hp with AWD. All four carry the exact version name 0.7 CVT, so power and drive type are necessary to distinguish them.

The 1 generation, restyling ran from December 2016 to February 2020, again as a Microvan with four versions. The engine choices remained 0.7 CVT with either 49 hp and 56 Nm or 64 hp and 98 Nm, and both outputs were available with FWD or AWD. The clearest recorded changes are in kerb weight, compression ratio and measured CO₂ figures. Compared with their original-generation equivalents, the restyled 49 hp FWD and AWD versions are each 20 kg heavier. The restyled 64 hp FWD has the same 960 kg kerb weight as before, while the 64 hp AWD remains at 1,010 kg.

Mitsubishi eK Space engine and specs

Every 0.7 CVT uses a 658 cc Gasoline engine with 3 cylinders in an Inline layout, 4 valves per cylinder, distributed injection (multi-point), and a 65.4 × 65.4 mm bore and stroke. The naturally aspirated designation is recorded as “No” for boost in the restyled 49 hp versions; boost information for the original 49 hp versions is not measured. The 64 hp engines are recorded as Turbo in both phases.

Displacement is identical, but the output difference is substantial. The 49 hp engine produces about 74.5 hp per litre, while the 64 hp Turbo produces about 97.3 hp per litre. The Turbo therefore supplies about 22.8 additional hp per litre. It also reaches peak torque 2,500 rpm earlier: 98 Nm at 3,000 rpm instead of 56 Nm at 5,500 rpm.

The compression ratio is not measured for the 2014–2016 versions. In the restyled range, the 49 hp AWD engine has a 10.9 ratio, the 49 hp FWD has 10, and both 64 hp Turbo versions have 9.

Mitsubishi eK Space performance, fuel average and economy

Acceleration from 0–100 km/h is not measured for any 0.7 CVT version. Top speed is also not measured for any version. City fuel consumption, highway fuel consumption and combined fuel consumption are not measured throughout the range, so a Mitsubishi eK Space fuel average or mpg figure cannot be stated from this data.

Measured CO₂ figures are available only for the restyled models. The 64 hp FWD version records 105 g/km, followed by the 49 hp FWD at 106 g/km, the 64 hp AWD at 114 g/km and the 49 hp AWD at 115 g/km. In both engine pairs, choosing AWD corresponds to 9 g/km more CO₂ than choosing FWD. The restyled 64 hp versions record 1 g/km less than their 49 hp counterparts with the same drive type.

No CO₂ value is measured for any 2014–2016 version. An environmental class is not measured for either phase.

Mitsubishi eK Space dimensions, weight and chassis specs

Exterior length, width and height are not measured in the supplied specifications. Wheel sizes are also not measured. Gross weight is not measured for any version.

Kerb weight clearly separates the variants:

The original 49 hp FWD version is the lightest at 930 kg. The 64 hp AWD version is the heaviest at 1,010 kg in both phases, an 80 kg difference from the lightest model. Within each generation, AWD adds 50 kg over FWD for the same engine. In the restyled range, the 64 hp FWD weighs only 10 kg more than the 49 hp FWD while offering 15 additional hp and 42 additional Nm.

All versions use Independent, spring front suspension and Dependent, spring rear suspension. Front brakes are Disc and rear brakes are Drum.

Mitsubishi eK Space reliability and problems

Reliability ratings and common-problem records are not measured in the supplied data. The specifications therefore do not support claims about failure rates, repair frequency, battery life or long-term durability. No Hybrid powertrain appears in the listed versions: every engine in this catalogue data is Gasoline. Prices and cars for sale are likewise outside the available information.

What can be compared is mechanical specification consistency. Both phases retain the same 658 cc displacement, Variable gearbox, FWD/AWD selection, 150 mm clearance, 30-litre tank, suspension arrangement and brake types. That consistency describes the catalogue range, but it is not evidence of reliability.

Which Mitsubishi eK Space version should you buy?

For the strongest numbers with the least weight, choose the 64 hp FWD 0.7 CVT. In both phases it weighs 960 kg, giving 15.0 kg per hp, the best figure in the range. Its Turbo engine produces 98 Nm at 3,000 rpm, compared with 56 Nm at 5,500 rpm from the 49 hp engine. In the restyled range, it also has the lowest recorded CO₂ value at 105 g/km.

Choose the 64 hp AWD 0.7 CVT if AWD is required and retaining the higher output matters more than minimising mass. It weighs 1,010 kg, or 50 kg more than the equivalent FWD version, but keeps the same 64 hp and 98 Nm. Its 15.8 kg/hp ratio remains better than the 49 hp FWD versions, which range from 19.0 to 19.4 kg/hp.

Choose the original 49 hp FWD 0.7 CVT if the lowest kerb weight is the priority. At 930 kg, it is 30 kg lighter than the original 64 hp FWD and 80 kg lighter than the 64 hp AWD. Its trade-off is output: 49 hp and 56 Nm, with peak torque arriving at 5,500 rpm.

Between the original and restyled phases, the data does not show a universal performance upgrade. The engine outputs remain 49 hp or 64 hp, and no acceleration or top-speed figures are measured. The restyling’s practical catalogue advantage is that it supplies measured compression ratios, explicit boost status for the 49 hp engines, and CO₂ figures of 105–115 g/km. For buying by specification alone, the 64 hp FWD 0.7 CVT is the clearest all-round choice; AWD should be selected for the drive layout itself, because it adds weight without adding power or torque.