Mitsubishi Colt 2007 vs Volkswagen EOS 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 109 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 155 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 7 HP less power than Volkswagen EOS, whereas torque is 10 NM less than Volkswagen EOS. Despite less power, Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen EOS, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Colt over 15,000 km in a year you can save 150 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen EOS. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 310'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Smart ForFour, Mitsubishi Xpander | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volkswagen EOS engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 4.41 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is smaller, but slightly higher. Mitsubishi Colt is 54 cm shorter than the Volkswagen EOS, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 190 litres | 205 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 380 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has 15 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen EOS. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.1 metres less than that of the Volkswagen EOS. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`930 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Volkswagen EOS has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Colt has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Volkswagen EOS, so Volkswagen EOS quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 5800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Volkswagen EOS has
| |