Renault Clio 2009 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.1 Petrol | 1.1 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 105 NM | 100 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.4 seconds | 13.2 seconds | |
| Renault Clio and Mitsubishi Colt have the same engine power, but Renault Clio torque is 5 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Renault Clio reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 6.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Clio consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Clio could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Clio consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 930 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 1120 km on highway | 1020 km on highway | ||
| 850 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Clio gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 17 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Dacia Logan, Renault Kangoo, Renault Twingo, Dacia Sandero | 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. Renault Clio might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.03 m | 3.94 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.49 m | 1.55 m | |
|
Renault Clio is larger, but lower. Renault Clio is 9 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt, 1 cm wider, while the height of Renault Clio is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 288 litres | 220 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1032 litres | |
|
Renault Clio has more luggage capacity. Renault Clio has 68 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Clio is 0.5 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Colt, which means Renault Clio can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`580 | 1`450 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Clio has serious deffects in 65 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2800 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Clio has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |