Mitsubishi Colt 2008 vs Citroen C3 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 95 HP | 70 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 160 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 16 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 25 HP more power than Citroen C3, but torque is 35 NM less than Citroen C3. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 4.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 4.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 5.2 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen C3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt could require 210 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 1130 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 1310 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 960 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen C3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 400'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Citroen C3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Colt might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Citroen C3 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.94 m | 3.94 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.52 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mitsubishi Colt and Citroen C3 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1032 litres | 1000 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has 80 litres less trunk space than the Citroen C3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Colt (by 32 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.6 metres more than that of the Citroen C3, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`460 | 1`564 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen C3 has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Citroen C3 has
| |