Mitsubishi eK Wagon


Debut: 2013
Maker: Mitsubishi
Predecessor: eK Wagon (2001)



 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.
Specifications





Year
Layout
Chassis
Body
Length / width / height
Wheelbase
Engine
Capacity
Valve gears
Induction
Other engine features
Max power
Max torque
Transmission
Suspension layout

Suspension features
Tires
Kerb weight
Top speed
0-60 mph (sec)
0-100 mph (sec)
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