Mitsubishi Colt 2007 vs Skoda Fabia 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.4 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 | 126 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 17 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 20 HP more power than Skoda Fabia, but torque is 1 NM less than Skoda Fabia. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 5.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 7.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Fabia, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Colt over 15,000 km in a year you can save 300 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Fabia. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 570 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 750 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 540 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 370'000 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 Skoda Fabia engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Octavia, Audi A2 | |
| 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 Skoda Fabia 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: | 3.81 m | 3.96 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.65 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.45 m | |
| Mitsubishi Colt is 15 cm shorter than the Skoda Fabia, 5 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 260 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
400 litres | 1015 litres | |
|
Skoda Fabia has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Colt has 40 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Fabia. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Fabia (by 615 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 Skoda Fabia. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`435 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Fabia has serious deffects in 75 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | no data | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 7.7/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Skoda Fabia has
| |