Mitsubishi Colt 2004 vs Citroen C3 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.1 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: | 75 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 100 NM | 120 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.4 seconds | 14.2 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Colt and Citroen C3 have the same engine power, but Mitsubishi Colt torque is 20 NM less than Citroen C3. Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.2 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C3, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Colt over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt 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: | 300'000 km | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Peugeot 307, Citroen Xsara, Peugeot 206, Citroen Berlingo | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Citroen C3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.87 m | 3.85 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.52 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mitsubishi Colt is 2 cm longer than the Citroen C3, 3 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 305 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
760 litres | 1150 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has 195 litres more trunk space than the Citroen C3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Citroen C3 (by 390 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.3 metres more than that of the Citroen C3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`450 | 1`470 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | below average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen C3 has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Citroen C3 has
| |