Mitsubishi Colt 1996 vs Ford Fiesta 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 108 NM | 124 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | 13.2 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 5 HP less power than Ford Fiesta, whereas torque is 16 NM less than Ford Fiesta. Despite less power, Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Fiesta 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 Ford Fiesta, 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 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fiesta. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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 Ford Fiesta engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 27 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.36 m | 1.46 m | |
| Mitsubishi Colt is 4 cm shorter than the Ford Fiesta, width is practically the same , while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 10 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | 268 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 945 litres | |
|
Ford Fiesta has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Colt has 28 litres less trunk space than the Ford Fiesta. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Fiesta (by 115 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.2 metres more than that of the Ford Fiesta. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`445 | 1`520 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Ford Fiesta has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mitsubishi Colt, so Ford Fiesta quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Ford Fiesta has
| |