Mitsubishi Colt 1996 vs Volkswagen Polo 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.4 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Mitsubishi Colt) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Volkswagen Polo) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 108 NM | 195 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | 13.6 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Colt and Volkswagen Polo have the same engine power, but Mitsubishi Colt torque is 87 NM less than Volkswagen Polo. Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 4.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 5.2 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 2.4 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 360 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1.9 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 | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 1120 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Polo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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 | 245 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 975 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has 5 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volkswagen Polo (by 145 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`550 | |
| 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 (€): | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |