Mitsubishi Colt 2008 vs Volkswagen Polo 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 95 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 175 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 10 HP less power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 50 NM less than Volkswagen Polo. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt could require 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 720 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Mitsubishi Colt 2008 1.3 engine: The Mitsubishi 4A90 is a 1.3-liter aluminum four-cylinder engine with a timing chain, used mainly in compact Mitsubishi models. It is a simple and lightweight unit designed with fuel economy in mind, but over time several characteristic weaknesses tend ... More about Mitsubishi Colt 2008 1.3 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.94 m | 3.97 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.49 m | |
| Mitsubishi Colt is 3 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Polo, 1 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 280 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1032 litres | 952 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has 60 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Colt (by 80 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight: | 1`460 kg | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Polo has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 3400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |