Mitsubishi Colt 2008 vs Mazda 2 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 95 HP | 84 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 121 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 13.6 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 11 HP more power than Mazda 2, whereas torque is 4 NM more than Mazda 2. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 5.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 2 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.7 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 105 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 43 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 330'000 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 Mazda 2 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 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. Mitsubishi Colt might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.48 m | |
| Mitsubishi Colt is 4 cm shorter than the Mazda 2, width is practically the same , while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 5 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`430 | 1`485 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Mazda 2 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mitsubishi Colt, so Mazda 2 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 3000 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |