Mitsubishi Colt 2005 vs Hyundai Getz 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.1 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 | 66 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 99 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 15.6 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 29 HP more power than Hyundai Getz, whereas torque is 26 NM more than Hyundai Getz. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 4.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 6.3 l/100km | |
|
The Hyundai Getz is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Hyundai Getz, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt could require 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Hyundai Getz. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km with real consumption | 710 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 Hyundai Getz engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 21 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Kia Picanto, Hyundai i10 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.81 m | 3.82 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.49 m | |
| Mitsubishi Colt is 1 cm shorter than the Hyundai Getz, 4 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 155 litres | 254 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
760 litres | no data | |
|
Hyundai Getz has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Colt has 99 litres less trunk space than the Hyundai Getz. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.8 metres more than that of the Hyundai Getz, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`435 | 1`400 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Hyundai Getz has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 7.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Hyundai Getz has
| |