Mazda 2 2003 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 146 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.4 seconds | 8 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 2 engine produces 50 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 64 NM less than Mitsubishi Colt. Due to the lower power, Mazda 2 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.1 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 2 consumes 0.3 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 45 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 2 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 630 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 770 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 470'000 km | 350'000 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 | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Ford C-Max, 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. Mazda 2 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mitsubishi Colt 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: | 3.92 m | 3.82 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.55 m | |
| Mazda 2 is 10 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`515 | 1`520 | |
| 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
| |