2010 Mitsubishi Colt vs. 2012 Volvo C30
To start off, 2012 Volvo C30 is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2010 Mitsubishi Colt. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2010 Mitsubishi Colt would be higher. At 1,600 cc (4 cylinders), 2012 Volvo C30 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Mitsubishi Colt weights approximately 99 kg more than 2012 Volvo C30.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control.
Compare all specifications:
| 2010 Mitsubishi Colt | 2012 Volvo C30 | |
| Make | Mitsubishi | Volvo |
| Model | Colt | C30 |
| Year Released | 2010 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1500 cc | 1600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 148 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | 6-speed manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 3 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1550 kg | 1451 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3640 mm | 4252 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1695 mm | 1783 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1550 mm | 1448 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2500 mm | 2639 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 5.5 L/100km | 3.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 47 L | 60 L |
