Mitsubishi Colt 2008 vs Renault Clio 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.1 Petrol | 1.1 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 100 NM | 105 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.2 seconds | 13.4 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Colt and Renault Clio have the same engine power, but Mitsubishi Colt torque is 5 NM less than Renault Clio. Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.1 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Colt over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 930 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 1120 km on highway | ||
| 770 km with real consumption | 850 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Clio gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Dacia Logan, Renault Kangoo, Renault Twingo, Dacia Sandero | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Clio might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.94 m | 4.03 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.49 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is smaller, but higher. Mitsubishi Colt is 9 cm shorter than the Renault Clio, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 288 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1032 litres | no data | |
|
Renault Clio has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Colt has 68 litres less trunk space than the Renault Clio. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.5 metres more than that of the Renault Clio, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`450 | 1`580 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Clio has serious deffects in 65 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2800 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Renault Clio has
| |