Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the city car segment and utilize the same 5-door hatchback body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. The first one has a Mitsubishi-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 71hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 75hp engine designed by Mazda.

Both vehicles got tested by European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), with the same number of safety stars gained in the process. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. Both vehicles belong to the city car segment, which is generally not a very good thing safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. On the other hand, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, Mazda 2 offers a considerable difference of 12% more metal.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that Mazda does have a slight advantage, at least on all of the models level. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Mitsubishi with an average rating of 4.6, and models under the Mazda badge with 4.4 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Space Star as average reliability-wise, and 2 is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as Space Star rank it on average as 3.7, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.0 out of 5.

Mazda is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.5 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 171 kilometers per hour, 1km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be Space Star, averaging around 4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (71 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 18% difference compared to Mazda 2.

Mitsubishi appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, Mazda 2 offers significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. It all continues in the same direction, with Mazda offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say Mitsubishi. Nevertheless, let's not forget that people have different preferences and needs, so what really counts is your personal feel. I'm only here to help. In case you have two minutes to spare I invite you to define your needs, desires and budget and see which car would be chosen by the virtual adviser™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.