Mitsubishi Colt 2004 vs Citroen C3 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.4 Diesel | |
| 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 | 68 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 160 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.3 seconds | 14.8 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 27 HP more power than Citroen C3, but torque is 35 NM less than Citroen C3. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 4.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 4.8 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen C3 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 Citroen C3, 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 2.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 1020 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 930 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen C3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 430'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Citroen C3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 21 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Peugeot 307, Peugeot 207 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Citroen C3 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
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: | 155 litres | 305 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
760 litres | 1150 litres | |
|
Citroen C3 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Colt has 150 litres less trunk space than the Citroen C3. 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 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`435 | 1`539 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen C3 has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 6.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Citroen C3 has
| |