Mitsubishi Colt 2007 vs Nissan Micra 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 109 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 153 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 1 HP less power than Nissan Micra, whereas torque is 8 NM less than Nissan Micra. Despite less power, Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Colt over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 310'000 km | 360'000 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 Nissan Micra engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 19 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Smart ForFour, Mitsubishi Xpander | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Almera, Nissan Juke, Nissan Note | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Micra might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 3.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.44 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mitsubishi Colt is 7 cm longer than the Nissan Micra, 3 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 190 litres | 255 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 457 litres | |
|
Nissan Micra has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Colt has 65 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Micra. This could mean that the Mitsubishi Colt uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 9.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 1.6 metres more than that of the Nissan Micra, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`540 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Nissan Micra has
| |