Renault Clio 2008 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.5 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: | 110 HP | 109 HP | |
| Torque: | 151 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 10 seconds | |
| Renault Clio engine produces 1 HP more power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 6 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
By specification Renault Clio consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Clio could require 60 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Renault Clio consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 780 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Clio gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 25 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Smart ForFour, Mitsubishi Xpander | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Clio might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | no data | 3.94 m | |
| Width: | no data | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | no data | 1.55 m | |
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 220 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1032 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 10.8 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Clio has serious deffects in 65 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2800 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Clio has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |