Mitsubishi Colt 2007 vs Volkswagen EOS 2011
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 109 HP | 122 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 13 HP less power than Volkswagen EOS, whereas torque is 55 NM less than Volkswagen EOS. Despite less power, Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen EOS is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen EOS, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt could require 60 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 780 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen EOS gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 Volkswagen EOS engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Smart ForFour, Mitsubishi Xpander | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, 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 EOS 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: | 3.88 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is smaller, but slightly higher. Mitsubishi Colt is 55 cm shorter than the Volkswagen EOS, 10 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 190 litres | 205 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 380 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has 15 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen EOS. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.1 metres less than that of the Volkswagen EOS. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`920 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Volkswagen EOS has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Colt has serious deffects in 115 percent more cases than Volkswagen EOS, so Volkswagen EOS quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Volkswagen EOS has
| |