Kia Ceed 2010 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Kia Ceed) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Mitsubishi Colt) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 109 HP | |
| Torque: | 255 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 10 seconds | |
| Kia Ceed engine produces 6 HP more power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 110 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Despite the higher power, Kia Ceed reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.4 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Kia Ceed is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Kia Ceed consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that by driving the Kia Ceed over 15,000 km in a year you can save 270 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Kia Ceed consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 53 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1200 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 1320 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 880 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Kia Ceed gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 21 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Hyundai i30, Kia Cerato | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Smart ForFour, Mitsubishi Xpander | |
| 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 Kia Ceed 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: | 4.26 m | 3.94 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.55 m | |
|
Kia Ceed is larger, but lower. Kia Ceed is 32 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt, 10 cm wider, while the height of Kia Ceed is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 340 litres | 220 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1032 litres | |
|
Kia Ceed has more luggage capacity. Kia Ceed has 120 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Kia Ceed is 0.5 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Colt, which means Kia Ceed can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`860 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Kia Ceed has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3000 | 2400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Kia Ceed has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |