Mitsubishi Colt 2005 vs Ford Fiesta 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 95 HP | 70 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 106 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 17.3 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 25 HP more power than Ford Fiesta, whereas torque is 19 NM more than Ford Fiesta. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 6.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 6.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fiesta, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Colt over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fiesta. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 420'000 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 Ford Fiesta engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Used also on Ford KA | |
| 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 Ford Fiesta 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: | 3.81 m | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.46 m | |
| Mitsubishi Colt is 11 cm shorter than the Ford Fiesta, 2 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 284 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
760 litres | no data | |
|
Ford Fiesta has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Colt has 64 litres less trunk space than the Ford Fiesta. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 1 metres more than that of the Ford Fiesta, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`500 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Ford Fiesta, so Mitsubishi Colt quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 7.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Ford Fiesta has
| |