Skoda Fabia 2003 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2005
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 126 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.1 seconds | 8 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Skoda Fabia engine produces 75 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 84 NM less than Mitsubishi Colt. Due to the lower power, Skoda Fabia reaches 100 km/h speed 6.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Fabia is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Fabia consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that by driving the Skoda Fabia over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Fabia consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 370'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 9 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. | |||
| Skoda Fabia 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 Skoda Fabia 2003 1.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.22 m | 3.82 m | |
| Width: | 1.65 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.55 m | |
| Skoda Fabia is 40 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`520 | |
| 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 (€): | 1000 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Fabia has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |