Mitsubishi Colt 1996 vs Toyota Corolla 2000
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.4 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 | 96 HP | |
| Torque: | 108 NM | 130 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.8 seconds | 11.8 seconds | |
|
Toyota Corolla is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 21 HP less power than Toyota Corolla, whereas torque is 22 NM less than Toyota Corolla. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.4 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Corolla is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Corolla, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt could require 180 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 2.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Corolla. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 530 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Corolla gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | Used also on Toyota Auris | |
| 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 | 4.29 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.36 m | 1.38 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is smaller. Mitsubishi Colt is 41 cm shorter than the Toyota Corolla, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 9.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.4 metres more than that of the Toyota Corolla, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`450 | 1`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Toyota Corolla has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Colt has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Toyota Corolla, so Toyota Corolla quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Toyota Corolla has
| |