Mitsubishi Colt 2005 vs Ford Fiesta 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 124 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8 seconds | 13.2 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 70 HP more power than Ford Fiesta, whereas torque is 86 NM more than Ford Fiesta. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 5.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Fiesta is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fiesta, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fiesta. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Used also on Ford Focus | |
| 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. | |||
| 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 | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.46 m | |
| Mitsubishi Colt is 10 cm shorter than the Ford Fiesta, 2 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 155 litres | 284 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
760 litres | 945 litres | |
|
Ford Fiesta has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Colt has 129 litres less trunk space than the Ford Fiesta. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Fiesta (by 185 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 1 metres more than that of the Ford Fiesta, 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`520 | 1`525 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Ford Fiesta, so Mitsubishi Colt quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 7.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Ford Fiesta has
| |