Mitsubishi Colt
Mitsubishi Colt technical data
Please choose Mitsubishi Colt generation to gain full info - reviews, technical specifications, prices, quality and safety data, options and photos
Is Mitsubishi Colt a reliable car?
Mitsubishi Colt is a reliable car. In terms of the number of defects found during annual inspections, the Mitsubishi Colt scores better than 75% of other cars of a similar age tested.
According to these reviews, the highest reliability scores achieved Mitsubishi Colt generation from 2004 to 2008, but the lowest reliability had models from model year 2005 to 2009 (which were in any case better than the average reliability for cars of this age), but overall the reliability scores of all tested Mitsubishi Colt generations are quite similar.
Most Mitsubishi Colt engines utilize a timing chain drive, which is widely regarded as more dependable compared to engines with a timing belt drive.
Mitsubishi Colt reviews
Total 10 Mitsubishi Colt owner reviews
| Purchase year: | 2006 (age of car 0 years) | Owned for: | 120`000 kilometers (10 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 7.0 litres per 100km (30% urban driving) | ||
| Total cost of repairs: | 590 € (~ 59 € per year) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Pros: Ideal for woman and city.
Cons: Bad amortization. When turning to right or left its difficult to see pedestrians because of side window frame. Rearranging cannot rely on view in mirror. At rain and a glacier dirty back and rear glass. A small trunk.
| Purchase year: | 2018 (age of car 11 years) | Owned for: | 18`000 kilometers (1 year) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 5.8 litres per 100km (50% urban driving) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Pros: Very spacious car, with adjustable back seats. Car is economical when drove with a bit of common sense. Obviously not a motorway car but holds the roads very well. Ideal for a young driver or someone living in the city or someone that does short journeys.
Cons: One blind spot beside the steering wheel and on the passenger side is the pillars that would be it.
| Purchase year: | 2017 (age of car 10 years) | Owned for: | 2`000 kilometers (0 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 7.0 litres per 100km (90% urban driving) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Pros: Roomy and practical, 1.5 engine is lively, well equipped
Cons: front rows of very large, representing a large blind zones
fuel consumption, perhaps a little too high, but not to complain
| Purchase year: | 2010 (age of car 3 years) | Owned for: | 24`000 kilometers (6 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 6.5 litres per 100km (30% urban driving) | ||
| Total cost of repairs: | 54 € (~ 9 € per year) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Pros: Good car for a woman, good handling, sufficiently large.
Cons: Noisy on rural roads
| Purchase year: | 2008 (age of car 0 years) | Owned for: | 60`000 kilometers (9 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 8.0 litres per 100km (90% urban driving) | ||
| Total cost of repairs: | 120 € (~ 13 € per year) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Pros: Real city car, easy to park.
Cons: High fuel consumption for a small car
| Purchase year: | 2008 (age of car 2 years) | Owned for: | 60`000 kilometers (10 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 6.0 litres per 100km (60% urban driving) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Pros: One man's transfer vehicle
Cons: At winter -20 door freezes in, rust