Skoda Fabia 2003 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2004
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.4 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: | 126 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.1 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Skoda Fabia engine produces 20 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, but torque is 1 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Due to the lower power, Skoda Fabia reaches 100 km/h speed 3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Fabia 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 Skoda Fabia could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Fabia consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 370'000 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 Skoda Fabia engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Octavia, Audi A2 | 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Skoda Fabia 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: | 4.22 m | 3.87 m | |
| Width: | 1.65 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.55 m | |
| Skoda Fabia is 35 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Skoda Fabia is 10 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 426 litres | 155 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1225 litres | 760 litres | |
|
Skoda Fabia has more luggage capacity. Skoda Fabia has 271 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Fabia (by 465 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Fabia is 0.3 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`610 | 1`435 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Fabia has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Fabia has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |