Volkswagen Polo 2009 vs Mitsubishi Colt 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 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." | |||
| 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: | 90 HP | 95 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 5 HP less power than Mitsubishi Colt, but torque is 105 NM more than Mitsubishi Colt. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.2 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 4.9 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 1.6 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 240 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1070 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
| 910 km with real consumption | 720 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 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 Polo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 22 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Audi A3, Skoda Fabia, Skoda Roomster | 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 Volkswagen Polo 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. | |||
| Volkswagen Polo 2009 1.6 engine: The 1.6 TDI turbo diesel engine is generally reliable, which is especially reassuring given its frequent use in commercial vehicles. Even under heavy use, it can exceed 500,000 km, provided that maintenance is performed regularly and ... More about Volkswagen Polo 2009 1.6 engine Mitsubishi Colt 2008 1.3 engine: The Mitsubishi 4A90 is a 1.3-liter aluminum four-cylinder engine with a timing chain, used mainly in compact Mitsubishi models. It is a simple and lightweight unit designed with fuel economy in mind, but over time several characteristic weaknesses tend ... More about Mitsubishi Colt 2008 1.3 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.97 m | 3.94 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.49 m | 1.55 m | |
| Volkswagen Polo is 3 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Colt, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 280 litres | 220 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 1032 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Polo has more luggage capacity. Volkswagen Polo has 60 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Colt. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`650 kg | 1`460 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Colt has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Polo has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Colt, so Mitsubishi Colt quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Mitsubishi Colt has
| |