Mitsubishi Colt 1996 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 95 HP | |
| Torque: | 108 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.8 seconds | 12.3 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt 2004 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Colt 1996 engine produces 20 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt 2004, whereas torque is 17 NM less than Mitsubishi Colt 2004. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Colt 1996 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.5 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt 2004 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt 1996 consumes 2.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt 2004, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt 1996 could require 330 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt 1996 consumes 2.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt 2004. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 520 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt 2004 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 | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 27 years | 21 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | Used also on Smart ForFour | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Colt 1996 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 3.87 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.36 m | 1.55 m | |
| Mitsubishi Colt 1996 is 1 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt 2004, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt 1996 is 19 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | 155 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 760 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt 1996 has more luggage capacity. Mitsubishi Colt 1996 has 85 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt 2004. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Colt 1996 (by 70 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt 1996 is 0.8 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Colt 2004, which means Mitsubishi Colt 1996 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`450 | 1`435 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | Mitsubishi Colt 2004 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Colt 1996 has serious deffects in 345 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt 2004, so Mitsubishi Colt 2004 quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |