|
|
|
Published
on 1
Dec 2014
|
All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
The last eK Wagon
had been serving Mitsubishi since 2001. Contrary to the meaning of its
name, it was never regarded to be an excellent Kei-car, even when it
was new. Anyway, cash-strapped Mitsubishi kept selling it for nearly 13
years with little changes, which was a (sad) miracle for Japanese motor
industry. Poor financial health did not allow Mitsubishi to develop a
new generation eK Wagon. Fortunately, it eventually forged a deal with
Nissan, to which it used to supply eK Wagons that were rebadged as
Nissan Otti. They established a 50-50 joint venture called NMKV (Nissan
Mitsubishi Kei Vehicles) to build their new generation K-cars which you
will see on this page. Mitsubishi took the leading role in development
and manufacturing of these cars, while Nissan contributed to planning,
design and procurement. To Mitsubishi, it is benefited by not only the
shared development resources but also the lower production costs
brought by the much enlarged volume. The first fruit of the JV is the
new generation eK Wagon.
The new car looks more modern, of course, but it lacks character and
has no traces of its predecessor. In fact, I think its styling follows
too closely its rivals, namely Daihatsu Move and Suzuki Wagon R. In a bid to
match those cars it has the roof raised by 70 mm to 1620 mm. It also
follows them to offer 2 body styles, one more civilized and targets at
women, another (called eK Custom) more dramatic and targets at men.
Poor Mitsubishi… it was the most radical Japanese car maker 20 years
ago!
The interior design has pros and cons. At a first glance it looks a
pleasant place to spend time, thanks to 2-tone color scheme and a
piano-black center console that comes with touch-panel air-conditioning
controls. Touch it, however, and you will find the plastics are cheap,
and the touch panel is not as convenient to use as conventional rotary
switch knobs. On the more positive side, the seat fabric feels more
expensive than the norm of K-cars, and seat comfort is above average,
too. That said, the seating arrangement is not among the most flexible.
Its rear seats fold but the resultant load bay has a pronounced step.
They can slide back and forth for a range of 170 mm to alter boot
space, but they cannot do that individually. This mean you can't
accommodate a normal-size adult at the back and place a large luggage
simultaneously. No matter accessories or oddity storage, this car
breaks no new ground.
A similar story can be told for its mechanical package. Its 3B20 engine
is modified from the rear-engined minicar i. Improvements major on
using low friction components and raising compression ratio to 12.0:1.
As before, it has twin-cam driving 12 valves, and the intake camshaft
has variable phasing confusingly called MIVEC. Such specifications
might suggest a remarkable output. Somehow, it produces an unremarkable
49 horsepower, compared to 52 hp on Daihatsu and Suzuki or 58 hp on
Honda. Worse still, its maximum torque is only 41 lbft, and it is not
available until 5500 rpm. Such a peaky torque curve blunts its
real-world performance, especially when the car is not so light at 830
kg. It feels sluggish in standing start acceleration, and never as
lively as rivals.
Predictably, the turbocharged version, available on only eK Custom, is
a lot better. Its 72 lbft of peak torque is delivered at 3000 rpm, thus
performance is a lot more accessible. This also relieves the engine
from high revolution in regular driving, thus reduces noise a lot. As
turbo lag is minimal, the power delivery is smooth. On the downside,
the turbo is not only more expensive to buy but also more expensive to
run. Its official fuel economy figure is only 23.4 km/l, blame to the
lack of automatic stop start. The naturally aspirated motor is much
better at 29.2 km/l. I would rather it sacrificed some economy for more
punch, but the fact that its rivals produce more power yet achieve
higher economy figure means Mitsubishi has no option.
Without fitting anti-roll bars as standard, the eK corners with
pronounced roll thus its handling is not as confidence inspiring as
some rivals. That said, the body roll is progressive thus in normal
driving this is never an issue. On the flip side, its ride quality is
among the best, being smoother and quieter than most rivals. I would
say such a character suits Nissan better than Mitsubishi.
The eK could have been appealing to housewives or drivers who don't
care about driving excitement. Unfortunately, it doesn't break any new
ground in the competitive K-car segment. Moreover, it is not as well
equipped as rivals. There is no standard stability control, while the
increasingly popular automatic braking is not even an option. Despite
of the help of NMKV, it fails to excel in value for money.
|
Verdict:  |
Published
on 1
Dec 2014
|
All rights reserved.
|
|
eK Space
|
Debut: 2014
Predecessor: No
|
|
This is the minivan
version of eK Wagon. Its main rivals are Daihatsu Tanto, Honda N-Box
and Suzuki Spacia. Compare with them, the Mitsubishi seems to be highly
competitive if you read its specifications. It has a pair of one-touch
electric sliding rear doors to ease access to the cabin. Its interior
height of 1400 mm is class-leading, allowing children to stand
straight. The driver sits high yet enjoys vast of headroom. Although
rear legroom is not the most generous, it can slide for a range of 260
mm to alter boot space. The rear seats can fold flat onto the floor, of
course, and unlike the case of eK Wagon, they can do that individually.
Other goodies include folding tables (mounted behind the front
seatbacks), touch-panel air-con controls, UV-filtered glass, lots of
storage cubbies and hooks… none are exactly groundbreaking, but buyers
are likely to be attracted by its long list of features.
In my eyes, the eK Space looks more distinctive than the eK Wagon. Its
interior is more stylish, too. Not so good is the driver seat. To save
money, you can adjust only the height of the cushion rather than the
whole seat, so the backrest is fixed thus seating comfort is
compromised. Moreover, the driver seat has very limited range of
longitudinal adjustment, so taller drivers will find knee room tight.
Carrying an extra 100 kg compared with its sibling, the eK Space
certainly needs stronger engines than the modest units of eK Wagon.
However, what Mitsubishi can do is very limited. It retuned the
naturally aspirated triple with revised valve and ignition timing to
produce slightly more torque at partial throttle, and adjusted the
transmission ratio to cope with the added weight. You can feel the
effort, but overall speaking it is still slow by class standard.
Moreover, its fuel economy still lags behind rivals. The Custom Turbo
performs much better, but fuel efficiency falls further behind.
Powertrain is still the major weakness of Mitsubishi.
Much better is the chassis. Unexpectedly, despite of its exaggerating
height, the eK Space achieves a smooth ride and decent body control
simultaneously. The ride quality is probably the best among its rivals,
especially on the softer springing standard car. Custom Turbo has
stiffer suspension setup and lower profile tires but it still rides
well. Its center of gravity doesn’t feel as high as it looks. On
motorway, it displays good stability during high-speed lane changing.
No doubt that the
standard front anti-roll bars help a lot to the good handling and ride.
What a pity the dynamics is let down by weak powertrains, otherwise it
could have come close to the top of the class.
|
| Verdict: |
Published
on 1
Dec 2014
|
All rights reserved.
|
|
Nissan Dayz
|
|
The Nissan versions
of eK Wagon and eK Space are Dayz and Dayz Roox respectively. They
differ from the Mitsubishis only cosmetically, thus all the pros and
cons described above are applicable to them. Interestingly, although
all the NMKV cars are engineered and produced by Mitsubishi, the Dayz
duo outsells eK duo by 3 to 1. This is probably due to more dealers and
better image of Nissan – Mitsubishi still suffers from the fraud of
hiding quality issues many years ago thus its quality image is rather
poor in the eyes of Japanese consumers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eK
Wagon
|
2013
|
| Front-engined,
FWD |
| Steel monocoque |
| Mainly steel |
| 3395 / 1475 / 1620 mm |
| 2430 mm |
Inline-3
|
| 659 cc |
DOHC 12 valves, VVT
|
| - |
| - |
49 hp / 6500 rpm
|
41 lbft / 5500 rpm
|
CVT
|
F: strut
R: torsion-beam
|
-
|
| 155/65R14 |
830 kg
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
eK
Custom
|
2014
|
| Front-engined,
FWD |
| Steel monocoque |
| Mainly steel |
| 3395 / 1475 / 1620 mm |
| 2430 mm |
Inline-3
|
| 659 cc |
DOHC 12 valves, VVT
|
| Turbo |
| - |
64 hp / 6000 rpm
|
72 lbft / 3000 rpm
|
CVT
|
F: strut
R: torsion-beam
|
-
|
| 165/55R15 |
860 kg
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
eK
Space Custom
|
2014
|
| Front-engined,
FWD |
| Steel monocoque |
| Mainly steel |
| 3395 / 1475 / 1775 mm |
| 2430 mm |
Inline-3
|
| 659 cc |
DOHC 12 valves, VVT
|
| Turbo |
| - |
64 hp / 6000 rpm
|
72 lbft / 3000 rpm
|
CVT
|
F: strut
R: torsion-beam
|
-
|
| 165/55R15 |
950 kg
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance
tested by: -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright©
1997-2014
by Mark Wan @ AutoZine
|
|
