Rover 25 1999 vs Mitsubishi Colt 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 103 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 123 NM | 108 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Rover 25 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 25 engine produces 28 HP more power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 15 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Thanks to more power Rover 25 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Rover 25 consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that by driving the Rover 25 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Rover 25 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 280'000 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 Rover 25 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 27 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Rover 200, Rover 400, Rover 45 | 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Rover 25 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: | 3.99 m | 3.88 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.36 m | |
|
Rover 25 is larger. Rover 25 is 11 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt, 1 cm wider, while the height of Rover 25 is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 304 litres | 240 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1086 litres | 830 litres | |
|
Rover 25 has more luggage capacity. Rover 25 has 64 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Rover 25 (by 256 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`500 | 1`445 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 25 has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |