Mitsubishi Colt 1996 vs Volkswagen Golf 1991
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 108 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | 12.1 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Golf is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 15 HP less power than Volkswagen Golf, whereas torque is 37 NM less than Volkswagen Golf. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Golf, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Colt over 15,000 km in a year you can save 165 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Golf. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 420'000 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 Volkswagen Golf engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 27 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volkswagen Vento, Seat Toledo, Seat Ibiza, Seat Cordoba | |
| 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 Volkswagen Golf 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 | 4.02 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.36 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is smaller. Mitsubishi Colt is 14 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Golf, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | 330 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 687 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has 90 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Golf. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Colt (by 143 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.7 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Golf, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`445 | 1`540 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Volkswagen Golf has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mitsubishi Colt, so Volkswagen Golf quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Volkswagen Golf has
| |