Mitsubishi Colt 2008 vs Volkswagen Polo 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.6 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Mitsubishi Colt) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Volkswagen Polo) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| 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 | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 195 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 14 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 20 HP more power than Volkswagen Polo, but torque is 70 NM less than Volkswagen Polo. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 4.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 4.7 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1.6 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 240 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1.8 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 | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 950 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Polo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 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 Volkswagen Polo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 21 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Used also on Skoda Fabia | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Colt might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volkswagen Polo 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. | |||
| Volkswagen Polo 2009 1.6 engine: The 1.6 TDI turbo diesel engine is generally reliable, which is especially reassuring given its frequent use in commercial vehicles. Even under heavy use, it can exceed 500,000 km, provided that maintenance is performed regularly and ... More about Volkswagen Polo 2009 1.6 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 |
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 (kg): | 1`460 | 1`650 | |
| 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 (€): | 2400 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |