Mitsubishi Colt 1996 vs Fiat Punto 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 108 NM | 114 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | 11.4 seconds | |
|
Fiat Punto is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 5 HP less power than Fiat Punto, whereas torque is 6 NM less than Fiat Punto. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Fiat Punto is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Fiat Punto, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt could require 135 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 Fiat Punto. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 690 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 Fiat Punto engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 27 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Fiat Brava, Fiat Stilo | |
| 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 Fiat Punto 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: | 3.88 m | 3.86 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.36 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is larger, but lower. Mitsubishi Colt is 2 cm longer than the Fiat Punto, 2 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 12 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | 297 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 1080 litres | |
|
Fiat Punto has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Colt has 57 litres less trunk space than the Fiat Punto. This could mean that the Mitsubishi Colt uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Fiat Punto (by 250 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.5 metres less than that of the Fiat Punto, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`445 | 1`445 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Fiat Punto has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Fiat Punto has
| |