Mazda 2 2003 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.3 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: | 80 HP | 95 HP | |
| Torque: | 124 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15 seconds | 12.3 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 2 engine produces 15 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 1 NM less than Mitsubishi Colt. Due to the lower power, Mazda 2 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.5 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.2 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 2 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 Mazda 2 could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 2 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 620 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 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: | 11 years | 21 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. Mitsubishi Colt might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
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 | 155 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1044 litres | 760 litres | |
|
Mazda 2 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 2 has 112 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. 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`505 | 1`435 | |
| 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
| |