Mitsubishi Colt 2008 vs Volkswagen Polo 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 95 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 175 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 10 HP less power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 50 NM less than Volkswagen Polo. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 5.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 6.3 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt could require 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 330'000 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 Volkswagen Polo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Installed on at least 14 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Fabia, Seat Altea, Skoda Yeti | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volkswagen Polo 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 | 3.97 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.49 m | |
| Mitsubishi Colt is 3 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Polo, 1 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 280 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1032 litres | no data | |
|
Volkswagen Polo has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Colt has 60 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.2 metres more than that of the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`460 | 1`570 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Polo has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 4400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |