Mazda 626 1995 vs Mitsubishi Colt 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 106 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 158 NM | 108 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 626 engine produces 31 HP more power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 50 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Thanks to more power Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 6.9 | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 626 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 Mazda 626 could require 75 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 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 Mazda 626 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 27 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda 626 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: | 4.70 m | 3.88 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.36 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is larger. Mazda 626 is 82 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt, 7 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 626 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 455 litres | 240 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
747 litres | 830 litres | |
| Mazda 626 has 215 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Colt (by 83 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Colt, which means Mazda 626 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`675 | 1`445 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Colt has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |