Mitsubishi Colt 1996 vs Mazda 2 2007
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 108 NM | 121 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.8 seconds | 14 seconds | |
|
Mazda 2 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Colt and Mazda 2 have the same engine power, but Mitsubishi Colt torque is 13 NM less than Mazda 2. Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.5 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 2 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 2.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt could require 390 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 3.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 43 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 520 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 2 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 330'000 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 Mazda 2 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 27 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | Used also on Mazda 3 | |
| 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. | |||
| Mazda 2 2007 1.3 engine: The engine is generally robust, but the use of poor-quality fuel can lead to increased burn formation. Idling speeds tend to be unstable. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 3.90 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.36 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is smaller. Mitsubishi Colt is 2 cm shorter than the Mazda 2, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 12 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | 250 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 787 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has 10 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 2. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Colt (by 43 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda 2. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`450 | 1`480 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda 2 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Colt has serious deffects in 875 percent more cases than Mazda 2, so Mazda 2 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |