Mitsubishi Colt 2008 vs Mazda 2 2007
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.1 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 100 NM | 121 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.8 seconds | 14 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Colt and Mazda 2 have the same engine power, but Mitsubishi Colt torque is 21 NM less than Mazda 2. Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.1 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt could require 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 43 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 770 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 330'000 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 | Used also on Mazda 3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 2 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Mazda 2 2007 1.3 engine: The engine is generally robust, but the use of poor-quality fuel can lead to increased burn formation. Idling speeds tend to be unstable. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 3.90 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is smaller, but slightly higher. Mitsubishi Colt is 2 cm shorter than the Mazda 2, width is practically the same , while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 250 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 787 litres | |
|
Mazda 2 has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Colt has 30 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 2. | |||
| 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`480 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 2 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2800 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |