Mitsubishi Colt 1996 vs Volkswagen Polo 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 55 HP | |
| Torque: | 108 NM | 106 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | 17.5 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 20 HP more power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 2 NM more than Volkswagen Polo. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.7 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt could require 150 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 3.90 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.65 m | |
| Height: | 1.36 m | 1.46 m | |
| Mitsubishi Colt is 2 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Polo, 3 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 10 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | 270 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 1030 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Polo has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Colt has 30 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volkswagen Polo (by 200 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Polo, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`445 | 1`530 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Polo has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |