Mitsubishi Colt 1996 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 109 HP | |
| Torque: | 137 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt 2005 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Colt 1996 engine produces 19 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt 2005, whereas torque is 8 NM less than Mitsubishi Colt 2005. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Colt 1996 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 6.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt 2005 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt 1996 consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt 2005, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Colt 1996 could require 165 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt 1996 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt 2005. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt 2005 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 | 3.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.36 m | 1.52 m | |
| Mitsubishi Colt 1996 is 7 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt 2005, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt 1996 is 16 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 2005. 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 2005, 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`480 | 1`440 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt 2005 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Colt 1996 has serious deffects in 115 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt 2005, so Mitsubishi Colt 2005 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |