Mitsubishi Colt 2007 vs Volkswagen EOS 2011
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.4 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: | 150 HP | 122 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.4 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 28 HP more power than Volkswagen EOS, whereas torque is 10 NM more than Volkswagen EOS. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.1 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen EOS is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.9 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 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen EOS. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 780 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen EOS gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 380'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | 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. Volkswagen EOS might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.89 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is smaller, but slightly higher. Mitsubishi Colt is 54 cm shorter than the Volkswagen EOS, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 1 cm higher. | |||
| 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
| |