Citroen C3 2010 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Diesel | 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: | 70 HP | 95 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Citroen C3 engine produces 25 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, but torque is 35 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Due to the lower power, Citroen C3 reaches 100 km/h speed 4.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.4 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.2 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen C3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen C3 consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that by driving the Citroen C3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen C3 consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1130 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 1310 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
| 960 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen C3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 400'000 km | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Citroen C3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. Mitsubishi Colt might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Citroen C3 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.94 m | 3.94 m | |
| Width: | 1.73 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.55 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Citroen C3 and Mitsubishi Colt are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 300 litres | 220 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1000 litres | 1032 litres | |
| Citroen C3 has 80 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Colt (by 32 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen C3 is 0.6 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Colt, which means Citroen C3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`564 | 1`460 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen C3 has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen C3 has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |