Mitsubishi eK Sport: which 0.7 AT to buy — 50 hp vs turbo 64 hp, FWD vs AWD
If you are choosing a Mitsubishi eK Sport, every listed version is named 0.7 AT. The real split is 50 hp versus 64 hp, FWD versus AWD, and first-generation years (2002-09-01 to 2006-09-30) versus the restyling of that same generation (2006-01-01 to 2013-12-31). There is one body: Microvan. There is one gearbox: Automatic, 4 gears. There is one tank: 30 l. Fuel is 95.
If you are choosing a Mitsubishi eK Sport, every listed version is named 0.7 AT. The real split is 50 hp versus 64 hp, FWD versus AWD, and first-generation years (2002-09-01 to 2006-09-30) versus the restyling of that same generation (2006-01-01 to 2013-12-31). There is one body: Microvan. There is one gearbox: Automatic, 4 gears. There is one tank: 30 l. Fuel is 95. 0–100, top speed, fuel consumption, CO2, eco class, gross weight and wheel sizes are not measured on any version — so “fuel average” cannot be ranked from this catalogue.
Mitsubishi eK Sport specs that actually change between versions
Across both periods the engine is Gasoline, 657 cm³, Inline 3, 4 valves per cylinder, Front, transverse, Distributed injection (multi-point), bore and stroke 65 × 66. Boost is either No (50 hp) or Turbo (64 hp).
| Period | Version | hp (kW @ rpm) | Nm @ rpm | Boost | Compression | Drive | Kerb, kg | Clearance, mm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 generation, 2002-09-01–2006-09-30 | 0.7 AT, 50 hp | 50 (37 @ 6500) | 62 @ 4000 | No | 10 | FWD | 800 | 155 |
| 1 generation, 2002-09-01–2006-09-30 | 0.7 AT, 50 hp | 50 (37 @ 6500) | 62 @ 4000 | No | 10 | AWD | 850 | 155 |
| 1 generation, 2002-09-01–2006-09-30 | 0.7 AT, 64 hp | 64 (47 @ 6000) | 93 @ 3500 | Turbo | 8.5 | FWD | 850 | 155 |
| 1 generation, 2002-09-01–2006-09-30 | 0.7 AT, 64 hp | 64 (47 @ 6000) | 93 @ 3500 | Turbo | 8.5 | AWD | 900 | 160 |
| 1 generation restyling, 2006-01-01–2013-12-31 | 0.7 AT, 50 hp | 50 (37 @ 6500) | 62 @ 4000 | No | 10 | FWD | 800 | 155 |
| 1 generation restyling, 2006-01-01–2013-12-31 | 0.7 AT, 50 hp | 50 (37 @ 6500) | 62 @ 4000 | No | 10 | AWD | 850 | 155 |
| 1 generation restyling, 2006-01-01–2013-12-31 | 0.7 AT, 64 hp | 64 (47 @ 6000) | 93 @ 3500 | Turbo | 8.5 | FWD | 850 | 155 |
| 1 generation restyling, 2006-01-01–2013-12-31 | 0.7 AT, 64 hp | 64 (47 @ 6000) | 93 @ 3500 | Turbo | 8.5 | AWD | 900 | 160 |
Brakes and springs do not change: front Independent, spring; rear Semi-independent, spring; front Ventilated disc; rear Drum.
Engine: Mitsubishi eK Sport turbo 64 hp versus naturally aspirated 50 hp
On 657 cm³, the 50 hp 0.7 AT makes 50 ÷ 0.657 ≈ 76.1 hp per litre. The turbo 0.7 AT makes 64 ÷ 0.657 ≈ 97.4 hp per litre — 21.3 hp per litre more, or +28% power (64 − 50 = 14 hp).
Torque is the larger step: 93 − 62 = 31 Nm, +50%. Peak torque arrives 500 rpm earlier (3500 versus 4000). Peak power arrives 500 rpm earlier on the turbo (6000 versus 6500). Compression falls from 10 to 8.5 (−1.5) when Turbo is fitted.
What the extra 14 hp buys in mass: turbo FWD is 850 kg, the same as naturally aspirated AWD, and 50 kg heavier than naturally aspirated FWD (800 kg). Turbo AWD is 900 kg, 100 kg over the lightest 0.7 AT.
Power-to-weight (kg per hp, lower is stronger on paper):
- 0.7 AT, 50 hp, FWD: 800 ÷ 50 = 16.0 kg/hp
- 0.7 AT, 50 hp, AWD: 850 ÷ 50 = 17.0 kg/hp (worst)
- 0.7 AT, 64 hp, FWD: 850 ÷ 64 ≈ 13.3 kg/hp (best)
- 0.7 AT, 64 hp, AWD: 900 ÷ 64 ≈ 14.1 kg/hp
The turbo FWD 0.7 AT is 2.7 kg/hp lighter per horse than the NA FWD car, even though it weighs 50 kg more. The turbo AWD 0.7 AT still beats both 50 hp cars (14.1 versus 16.0 and 17.0). 0–100 km/h is not measured, so this ranking is mass and power only.
Drive: FWD or AWD on the same 0.7 AT
AWD adds 50 kg at both power levels (800→850 on 50 hp; 850→900 on 64 hp). Ground clearance stays 155 mm except on turbo AWD, where it is 160 mm (+5 mm). That is the only clearance difference in the data.
If you want AWD and the least mass penalty relative to power, take turbo AWD (14.1 kg/hp), not 50 hp AWD (17.0 kg/hp). If you want the lightest Microvan, take 50 hp FWD at 800 kg. If you want AWD without turbo, you pay the same 850 kg as turbo FWD, with 14 hp and 31 Nm less.
Generations: 2002–2006 versus restyling (including 2007)
The catalogue lists two generation keys, but they are one generation plus restyling, not a second generation. Dates overlap in 2006: original 1 generation runs to 2006-09-30; restyling starts 2006-01-01 and runs to 2013-12-31. A Mitsubishi eK Sport 2002 or 2003 is first-generation only. A Mitsubishi eK Sport 2007 is restyling only.
What the restyling changed in the numbers: nothing on hp, kW, rpm, Nm, 657 cm³, cylinders, layout, boost, compression, 65 × 66, fuel 95, Automatic 4, FWD/AWD, 30 l tank, kerb weights, or clearance. The four 0.7 AT mixes (50 FWD, 50 AWD, 64 FWD, 64 AWD) exist in both periods with the same kerb weights (800 / 850 / 850 / 900 kg) and the same 155 / 155 / 155 / 160 mm clearance.
So the restyling does not buy a stronger engine or a lighter shell in this data. Choosing 2002 versus 2007 is a year-band choice, not a spec choice. Searches for “eK Sport R” and “eK X Sports” do not match any version name here: every row is 0.7 AT. Colour (including blue) is not in the data.
Performance, mpg, dimensions: what is not measured
For every 0.7 AT in both periods: acceleration 0–100 is not measured; maximum speed is not measured; city, highway and mixed consumption are not measured; CO2 is not measured; eco class is not measured; gross weight is not measured; wheel size is not measured. You cannot pick a version by mpg or by 0–100 from this set.
What is measured for dimensions and weight: kerb 800–900 kg as above; tank 30 l on all eight listed 0.7 AT rows; ground clearance 155 mm except 160 mm on 64 hp AWD. That is the full measured envelope.
Which Mitsubishi eK Sport version to choose
Lightest daily 0.7 AT: 50 hp, No boost, FWD, 800 kg, 16.0 kg/hp, 155 mm. Same car in 2002–2006 and in restyling through 2013. You give up 14 hp and 31 Nm versus turbo.
Best power-to-weight 0.7 AT: 64 hp Turbo, FWD, 850 kg, ≈13.3 kg/hp, 155 mm. Same 14 hp / 31 Nm gain as turbo AWD, without the extra 50 kg. This is the version that most matches a “turbo” search if you do not need AWD.
AWD with the least kg per hp: 64 hp Turbo, AWD, 900 kg, ≈14.1 kg/hp, 160 mm clearance — the only version with 160 mm. Versus turbo FWD you add 50 kg and 5 mm. Versus 50 hp AWD you add 50 kg but gain 14 hp and 31 Nm, and kg/hp improves from 17.0 to 14.1.
Avoid if you want AWD but also the strongest ratio: 50 hp AWD is the weakest on paper (17.0 kg/hp) and matches turbo FWD mass (850 kg) without turbo torque.
Year: specs do not decide 2002 versus 2007. Pick the restyling window if you want a later 1 generation car (to 2013-12-31); pick 2002-09-01–2006-09-30 if you want the pre-restyle band. Do not treat restyling as a new generation.
Not in this catalogue: price (including Pakistan), fuel average, 0–100, top speed, wheels, gross weight, colour, and any name other than 0.7 AT. Reliability and typical problems are not in the data, so they are not ranked.
Arithmetic summary of what “the extra” buys: turbo = +14 hp, +31 Nm, −1.5 compression, −500 rpm on both peaks, +50 kg versus the same drive on 50 hp. AWD = +50 kg versus FWD at the same power, and +5 mm clearance only on the 64 hp AWD 0.7 AT. Restyling = +0 hp, +0 kg, +0 mm.