Volkswagen Polo 2001 vs Mitsubishi Colt 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Diesel | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Volkswagen Polo) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Mitsubishi Colt) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 195 NM | 108 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.6 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
| Volkswagen Polo and Mitsubishi Colt have the same engine power, but Volkswagen Polo torque is 87 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.5 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.2 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 2.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Polo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 360 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 1.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 1120 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Polo 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: | 3.90 m | 3.88 m | |
| Width: | 1.65 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.36 m | |
| Volkswagen Polo is 2 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 10 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 245 litres | 240 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
975 litres | 830 litres | |
| Volkswagen Polo has 5 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volkswagen Polo (by 145 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Colt, which means Volkswagen Polo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`550 | 1`445 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Polo has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |