Mitsubishi Colt 2008 vs Ford Focus 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 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: | 109 HP | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 124 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 14.1 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 29 HP more power than Ford Focus, whereas torque is 21 NM more than Ford Focus. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 4.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 7.6 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 Ford Focus, 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 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Focus gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 310'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 21 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Smart ForFour, Mitsubishi Xpander | Used also on Ford Fiesta | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.94 m | 4.34 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is smaller, but higher. Mitsubishi Colt is 40 cm shorter than the Ford Focus, 15 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 10 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 385 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1032 litres | 1247 litres | |
|
Ford Focus has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Colt has 165 litres less trunk space than the Ford Focus. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Focus (by 215 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.4 metres more than that of the Ford Focus, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`690 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Focus has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2800 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Ford Focus has
| |