Nissan Micra 2006 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2007
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 109 HP | |
| Torque: | 153 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
| Nissan Micra engine produces 1 HP more power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 8 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Despite the higher power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Micra could require 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Nissan Micra consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 360'000 km | 310'000 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 Nissan Micra engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 19 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Almera, Nissan Juke, Nissan Note | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Smart ForFour, Mitsubishi Xpander | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.81 m | 3.88 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.45 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Nissan Micra is 7 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Colt, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 255 litres | 190 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
457 litres | no data | |
|
Nissan Micra has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Nissan Micra has 65 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. | |||
| 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`540 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3000 | 3400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |