Mitsubishi Colt 2007 vs Suzuki Swift 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 133 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 48 HP more power than Suzuki Swift, whereas torque is 77 NM more than Suzuki Swift. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 6.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km | |
|
The Suzuki Swift 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 Suzuki Swift, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Swift. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
| Suzuki Swift gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Suzuki SX4, Suzuki Ignis | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Suzuki Swift might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mitsubishi Colt 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: | 3.82 m | 3.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.50 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is larger. Mitsubishi Colt is 13 cm longer than the Suzuki Swift, width is practically the same , while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 213 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
400 litres | 562 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has 7 litres more trunk space than the Suzuki Swift. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Suzuki Swift (by 162 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 9.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 1.4 metres more than that of the Suzuki Swift, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`520 | 1`485 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Suzuki Swift has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | no data | 2400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Suzuki Swift has
| |