Mazda 2 2007 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 86 HP | 95 HP | |
| Torque: | 122 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.9 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 2 engine produces 9 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 3 NM less than Mitsubishi Colt. Due to the lower power, Mazda 2 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 2 consumes 0.4 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 60 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 2 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 43 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 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 Mazda 2 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 21 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3 | 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. | |||
| Mazda 2 2007 1.3 engine: The engine is generally robust, but the use of poor-quality fuel can lead to increased burn formation. Idling speeds tend to be unstable. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.90 m | 3.88 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Mazda 2 is larger, but slightly lower. Mazda 2 is 2 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 2 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 250 litres | 220 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
787 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 2 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 2 has 30 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| 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`485 | 1`430 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 2 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 2400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 2 has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |