Mitsubishi Colt 2008 vs Suzuki Swift 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 95 HP | 94 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 118 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 12.3 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 1 HP more power than Suzuki Swift, whereas torque is 7 NM more than Suzuki Swift. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 5.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km | |
|
The Suzuki Swift is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Swift, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Swift. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 42 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 350'000 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 Suzuki Swift engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Suzuki Baleno, Suzuki Ignis | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 3.85 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.51 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mitsubishi Colt is 3 cm longer than the Suzuki Swift, width is practically the same , while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 204 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has 16 litres more trunk space than the Suzuki Swift. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 9.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 1.2 metres more than that of the Suzuki Swift, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`430 | 1`480 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Suzuki Swift, so Mitsubishi Colt quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 3000 | 4000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Suzuki Swift has
| |