Volkswagen Beetle 2003 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2007
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.5 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 | 109 HP | |
| Torque: | 126 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.6 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Beetle engine produces 34 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 19 NM less than Mitsubishi Colt. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Beetle reaches 100 km/h speed 5.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.1 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Beetle consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Beetle could require 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Beetle consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Beetle gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 370'000 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 Volkswagen Beetle engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 21 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Octavia, Skoda Fabia, Audi A2 | 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volkswagen Beetle 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. | |||
| Volkswagen Beetle 2003 1.4 engine: Engine is known for its simplicity, compact design, and overall reliability. Many complaints from owners are related to power loss or fluctuating idle, often caused by issues with the throttle body, EGR valve, or air leaks ... More about Volkswagen Beetle 2003 1.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.08 m | 3.88 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Volkswagen Beetle is larger. Volkswagen Beetle is 21 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt, 3 cm wider, while the height of Volkswagen Beetle is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 270 litres | 190 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Beetle has more luggage capacity. Volkswagen Beetle has 80 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Beetle is 0.1 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`700 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Beetle has serious deffects in 115 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Beetle has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |