Mazda 2 2010 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 1.5 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: | 95 HP | 109 HP | |
| Torque: | 205 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 2 engine produces 14 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, but torque is 60 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Due to the lower power, Mazda 2 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.2 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.0 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 2 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 2 consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that by driving the Mazda 2 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 300 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 2 consumes 2.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 43 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1020 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 1160 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 2 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 310'000 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 Mazda 2 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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 Mazda 2 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: | 3.90 m | 3.94 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.55 m | |
| Mazda 2 is 4 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Colt, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 2 is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 249 litres | 220 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
787 litres | 1032 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Mazda 2 has 29 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 245 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 2 is 1 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Colt, which means Mazda 2 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`540 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Mazda 2 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mitsubishi Colt, so Mazda 2 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 2 has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |