Mitsubishi Colt 2007 vs Mazda MX-5 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 109 HP | 126 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 167 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 9.6 seconds | |
|
Mazda MX-5 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 17 HP less power than Mazda MX-5, whereas torque is 22 NM less than Mazda MX-5. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 7.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda MX-5, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Colt over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda MX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 860 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mitsubishi Colt) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Mazda MX-5) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 310'000 km | 380'000 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 Mazda MX-5 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Smart ForFour, Mitsubishi Xpander | 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 | 4.00 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.26 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is smaller, but higher. Mitsubishi Colt is 13 cm shorter than the Mazda MX-5, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 19 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 190 litres | 150 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Mitsubishi Colt has 40 litres more trunk space than the Mazda MX-5. The Mazda MX-5 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.8 metres more than that of the Mazda MX-5, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`355 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda MX-5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Colt has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mazda MX-5, so Mazda MX-5 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 5400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Mazda MX-5 has
| |