Nissan Micra 1996 vs Mitsubishi Colt 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 55 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 79 NM | 108 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.4 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 20 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 29 NM less than Mitsubishi Colt. Due to the lower power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 3.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that by driving the Nissan Micra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 165 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Micra consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
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: | 11 years | 27 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Colt might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.70 m | 3.88 m | |
| Width: | 1.58 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.36 m | |
|
Nissan Micra is smaller, but higher. Nissan Micra is 18 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Colt, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 206 litres | 240 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
960 litres | 830 litres | |
| Nissan Micra has 34 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Micra (by 130 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 0.8 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`290 | 1`445 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |