Volkswagen Polo 2005 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 95 HP | |
| Torque: | 126 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.9 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 20 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, but torque is 1 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Polo could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 630 km with real consumption | 720 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.92 m | 3.94 m | |
| Width: | 1.65 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.55 m | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is smaller. Volkswagen Polo is 2 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Colt, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 270 litres | 220 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1030 litres | 1032 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Volkswagen Polo has 50 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. The Mitsubishi Colt may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Colt (by 2 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.2 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): | no data | 1`460 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Polo has serious deffects in 280 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |