Mitsubishi Colt 1996 vs Nissan Micra 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 55 HP | |
| Torque: | 108 NM | 79 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | 16.4 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 20 HP more power than Nissan Micra, whereas torque is 29 NM more than Nissan Micra. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 3.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt could require 165 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 42 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 800 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 27 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 3.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.58 m | |
| Height: | 1.36 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is larger, but lower. Mitsubishi Colt is 18 cm longer than the Nissan Micra, 10 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | 206 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 960 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has 34 litres more trunk space than the Nissan Micra. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Micra (by 130 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 9.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.8 metres more than that of the Nissan Micra, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`445 | 1`290 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Nissan Micra has
| |