Mitsubishi Colt 2008 vs Mazda 2 2010
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.1 - 1.5 (petrol) | 1.3 - 1.6 (petrol, diesel) | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 - 109 HP | 75 - 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 100 - 145 NM | 119 - 205 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 - 13.2 seconds | 10.7 - 14.9 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 - 6.2 | 4.2 - 6.3 | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt petrol engines consumes on average 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than Mazda 2. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.94 m | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.48 m | |
| Mitsubishi Colt is 2 cm longer than the Mazda 2, width is practically the same , while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 250 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1032 litres | 787 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Colt has 30 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 2. This could mean that the Mitsubishi Colt 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 Mitsubishi Colt (by 245 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 1 metres more than that of the Mazda 2, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`457 | ~ 1`499 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Average price (€): | 2800 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |