Mitsubishi Colt 2007 vs Renault Megane 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 109 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 151 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 11.8 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 1 HP less power than Renault Megane, whereas torque is 6 NM less than Renault Megane. Despite less power, Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 7.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Colt over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Megane gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 25 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Smart ForFour, Mitsubishi Xpander | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Renault Clio, Dacia Duster | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Megane might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 4.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is smaller, but higher. Mitsubishi Colt is 49 cm shorter than the Renault Megane, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 190 litres | 190 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 490 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.6 metres more than that of the Renault Megane, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`775 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Megane has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 2800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 8.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Renault Megane has
| |