Mazda 2 2003 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.1 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: | 75 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 110 NM | 100 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.1 seconds | 13.4 seconds | |
| Mazda 2 and Mitsubishi Colt have the same engine power, but Mazda 2 torque is 10 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Mazda 2 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.2 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 2 consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 2 could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 2 consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 1020 km on highway | ||
| 620 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 300'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Fiesta, Ford Fusion | 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.92 m | 3.87 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.55 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda 2 is 5 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 2 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 267 litres | 500 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1044 litres | 760 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 2 has 233 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. This could mean that the Mazda 2 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 2 (by 284 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`490 | 1`450 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Mazda 2 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Colt has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mazda 2, so Mazda 2 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 2 has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |