Nissan Micra 2003 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.5 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: | 88 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 128 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.9 seconds | 8 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 62 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 82 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): | 6.3 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.5 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 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Micra consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Micra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 350'000 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 Mitsubishi Colt engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan Note, Nissan Cube | 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. Nissan Micra might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| 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: | 3.72 m | 3.82 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.55 m | |
|
Nissan Micra is smaller. Nissan Micra is 10 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Colt, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 371 litres | 155 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
584 litres | 760 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Nissan Micra has 216 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. The Mitsubishi Colt may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Colt (by 176 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 1.6 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`475 | 1`520 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |