Nissan Micra 2003 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2004
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.0 - 1.5 | 1.1 - 1.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 65 - 88 HP | 68 - 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 90 - 185 NM | 100 - 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.9 - 17.9 seconds | 8 - 14.5 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.5 - 6.8 | 4.4 - 6.8 | |
|
Nissan Micra petrol engines consumes on average 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than Mitsubishi Colt. On average, Nissan Micra equipped with diesel engines consume 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.72 m | 3.86 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.55 m | |
|
Nissan Micra is smaller. Nissan Micra is 14 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Colt, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 371 litres | 500 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
584 litres | 760 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt has more luggage space. Nissan Micra has 129 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Colt (by 176 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 1 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Colt, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`479 | ~ 1`497 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |