Mitsubishi Colt 2004 vs Mazda 2 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 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: | 95 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 110 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 15.1 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 20 HP more power than Mazda 2, whereas torque is 15 NM more than Mazda 2. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 6.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.5 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 75 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 Mazda 2. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 620 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 300'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 21 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. Mitsubishi Colt might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
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: | 155 litres | 267 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
760 litres | 1044 litres | |
|
Mazda 2 has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Colt has 112 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 2. 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`435 | 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
| |