Renault Clio 2003 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.1 Petrol | 1.3 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: | 60 HP | 95 HP | |
| Torque: | 93 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Renault Clio engine produces 35 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 32 NM less than Mitsubishi Colt. Due to the lower power, Renault Clio reaches 100 km/h speed 4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 6.0 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 790 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Clio gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 18 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Renault Kangoo, Renault Twingo | Used also on Smart ForFour | |
| 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: | 3.81 m | 3.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.52 m | |
| Renault Clio and Mitsubishi Colt are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 255 litres | 155 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1035 litres | 760 litres | |
|
Renault Clio has more luggage capacity. Renault Clio has 100 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Clio (by 275 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Clio is 0.5 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Colt, which means Renault Clio can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`435 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Clio has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 5.0/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Clio has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |