Mitsubishi Colt 2005 vs Mazda 2 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 146 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8 seconds | 11.4 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 50 HP more power than Mazda 2, whereas torque is 64 NM more than Mazda 2. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 3.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 7.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 7.7 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Colt over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 630 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 580 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 470'000 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 Mazda 2 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Smart ForFour | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Ford C-Max, Ford Fiesta, Ford Fusion | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 2 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mitsubishi Colt 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: | 3.82 m | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.54 m | |
| Mitsubishi Colt is 10 cm shorter than the Mazda 2, 2 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 155 litres | 267 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
760 litres | 1044 litres | |
|
Mazda 2 has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Colt has 112 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 2. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 2 (by 284 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 1 metres more than that of the Mazda 2, which means Mitsubishi Colt can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`520 | 1`515 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Mazda 2 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Colt has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mazda 2, so Mazda 2 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |