Ford Mondeo 2000 vs Mitsubishi Colt 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 108 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.9 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Ford Mondeo is more dynamic to drive. Ford Mondeo engine produces 50 HP more power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 62 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Thanks to more power Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Mondeo could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 500'000 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 Ford Mondeo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 27 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Focus | 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. Mitsubishi Colt might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.73 m | 3.88 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.36 m | |
|
Ford Mondeo is larger. Ford Mondeo is 85 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt, 13 cm wider, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 240 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1370 litres | 830 litres | |
|
Ford Mondeo has more luggage capacity. Ford Mondeo has 260 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Mondeo (by 540 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 1.1 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Colt, which means Ford Mondeo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`875 | 1`445 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |