Mitsubishi Colt 2004 vs Mazda 2 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.1 Petrol | 1.2 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 | 110 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.4 seconds | 15.1 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Colt and Mazda 2 have the same engine power, but Mitsubishi Colt torque is 10 NM less than Mazda 2. Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 6.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.2 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Colt over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 620 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 300'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Used also on Ford Fiesta, Ford Fusion | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.87 m | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.54 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mitsubishi Colt is 5 cm shorter than the Mazda 2, 2 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 267 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
760 litres | 1044 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Mitsubishi Colt has 233 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 2. The Mazda 2 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 2 (by 284 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 1 metres more than that of the Mazda 2, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`450 | 1`490 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Mazda 2 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Colt has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mazda 2, so Mazda 2 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |