Mitsubishi Colt 2005 vs Renault Clio 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.1 Petrol | |
| 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 | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 93 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 15 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 35 HP more power than Renault Clio, whereas torque is 32 NM more than Renault Clio. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 6.0 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 1020 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 790 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Clio gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 18 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Renault Kangoo, Renault Twingo | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Clio might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.81 m | 3.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.42 m | |
| Mitsubishi Colt and Renault Clio are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 155 litres | 255 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
760 litres | 1035 litres | |
|
Renault Clio has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Colt has 100 litres less trunk space than the Renault Clio. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Clio (by 275 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.5 metres more than that of the Renault Clio, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`435 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Clio has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 5.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Renault Clio has
| |