Mitsubishi Colt 1996 vs Nissan Almera 2000
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.5 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 | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 108 NM | 128 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.8 seconds | 13.8 seconds | |
|
Nissan Almera is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 15 HP less power than Nissan Almera, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Nissan Almera. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.4 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Almera is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Almera, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt could require 210 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 Nissan Almera. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 900 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 1090 km on highway | ||
| 530 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Almera gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 300'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 27 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | Used only for this car | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 4.18 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.36 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is smaller. Mitsubishi Colt is 30 cm shorter than the Nissan Almera, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | 355 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 1100 litres | |
|
Nissan Almera has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Colt has 115 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Almera. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Almera (by 270 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.4 metres less than that of the Nissan Almera, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`450 | 1`690 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Nissan Almera has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Colt has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Nissan Almera, so Nissan Almera quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Nissan Almera has
| |