Renault Clio 2003 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.1 Petrol | 1.3 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 | 95 HP | |
| Torque: | 105 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Renault Clio engine produces 20 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Mitsubishi Colt. Due to the lower power, Renault Clio reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
By specification Renault Clio consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that by driving the Renault Clio over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Renault Clio consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Clio gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 17 years | 21 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.81 m | 3.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.52 m | |
| Renault Clio and Mitsubishi Colt are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 255 litres | 155 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1037 litres | 760 litres | |
|
Renault Clio has more luggage capacity. Renault Clio has 100 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Clio (by 277 litres). | |||
| 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`450 | 1`435 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Clio has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 5.0/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Clio has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |