Smart ForTwo 2004 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2004
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
| Engine: | 0.7 Petrol | 1.1 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 110 NM | 100 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.3 seconds | 13.4 seconds | |
|
Smart ForTwo is more dynamic to drive. Smart ForTwo and Mitsubishi Colt have the same engine power, but Smart ForTwo torque is 10 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.9 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForTwo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that by driving the Smart ForTwo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForTwo consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 33 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 710 km on highway | 1020 km on highway | ||
| 550 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mitsubishi Colt) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Smart ForTwo) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 2.50 m | 3.87 m | |
| Width: | 1.52 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.55 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller. Smart ForTwo is 137 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Colt, 18 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 500 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 760 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 8.5 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForTwo is 2.3 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Colt, which means Smart ForTwo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`450 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Smart ForTwo, so Mitsubishi Colt quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |