Mitsubishi Colt 2008 vs Renault Clio 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.4 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: | 95 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 127 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 11 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 5 HP less power than Renault Clio, whereas torque is 2 NM less than Renault Clio. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.8 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 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 790 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Renault Scenic, Renault Megane, Renault Modus | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Renault Clio 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: | 3.94 m | no data | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | no data | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | no data | |
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1032 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`460 | no data | |
| 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 (€): | 3200 | 2800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Renault Clio has
| |