Volkswagen Golf 1991 vs Mitsubishi Colt 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 108 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Golf is more dynamic to drive. Volkswagen Golf engine produces 15 HP more power than Mitsubishi Colt, whereas torque is 37 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Thanks to more power Volkswagen Golf reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Golf consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Golf could require 165 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Golf consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Colt 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: | 420'000 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 Volkswagen Golf engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 27 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volkswagen Vento, Seat Toledo, Seat Ibiza, Seat Cordoba | 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volkswagen Golf 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: | 4.02 m | 3.88 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.36 m | |
|
Volkswagen Golf is larger. Volkswagen Golf is 14 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt, 2 cm wider, while the height of Volkswagen Golf is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 330 litres | 240 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
687 litres | 830 litres | |
| Volkswagen Golf has 90 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Colt (by 143 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Golf is 0.7 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Colt, which means Volkswagen Golf can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`540 | 1`445 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Volkswagen Golf has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mitsubishi Colt, so Volkswagen Golf quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 2200 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Golf has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |