Ford KA 1997 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 95 HP | |
| Torque: | 105 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.4 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Ford KA engine produces 35 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Mitsubishi Colt. Due to the lower power, Ford KA reaches 100 km/h speed 4.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford KA consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford KA could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford KA consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 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 Ford KA engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 21 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Fiesta | 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.62 m | 3.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.63 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Ford KA is smaller. Ford KA is 19 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Colt, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Ford KA is 15 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 186 litres | 155 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
724 litres | 760 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Ford KA has 31 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. The Mitsubishi Colt may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Colt (by 36 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford KA is 1 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Colt, which means Ford KA can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`265 | 1`435 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford KA has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford KA has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |