Mitsubishi Colt 2000 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.3 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: | 82 HP | 95 HP | |
| Torque: | 120 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt 2005 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Colt 2000 engine produces 13 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt 2005, whereas torque is 5 NM less than Mitsubishi Colt 2005. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Colt 2000 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt 2005 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt 2000 consumes 0.9 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 2000 could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt 2000 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt 2005. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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 | 21 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Carisma, Mitsubishi Space Star | Used also on Smart ForFour | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Colt 2000 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 3.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.36 m | 1.52 m | |
| Mitsubishi Colt 2000 is 7 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt 2005, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt 2000 is 16 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | 155 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 760 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt 2000 has more luggage capacity. Mitsubishi Colt 2000 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 2000 (by 70 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt 2000 is 0.8 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Colt 2005, which means Mitsubishi Colt 2000 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`445 | 1`435 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Mitsubishi Colt 2005 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Colt 2000 has serious deffects in 75 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
| |