Mitsubishi Colt 2008 vs Volkswagen Polo 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.4 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. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 95 HP | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 195 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 12.8 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 15 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 1.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 4.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 4.8 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1.4 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 210 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1.7 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 | 1020 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 1150 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 930 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.94 m | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.65 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is larger. Mitsubishi Colt is 2 cm longer than the Volkswagen Polo, 5 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 270 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1032 litres | 1030 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Colt has 50 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. 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 2 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.2 metres more than that of the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`460 | 1`650 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Polo has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2800 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |