Nissan Pixo 1.0 68HP manual vs Mitsubishi Colt II 1.2 EL,GL 55HP

Nissan Pixo 1.0 68HP manual

Source: S 400 HYBRID All Rights Released into the public domain

6 reasons for

Nissan Pixo, model available from 2008.
It has 1.0 68HP petrol engine produced from 2008.
Drive on the front axle has manual, 5 speed gearbox.

5 reasons for

Mitsubishi Colt II, model available from 1984 to 1988.
It has 1.2 EL,GL 55HP petrol engine produced from 1984 to 1986.
Drive has manual gearbox.

Mitsubishi Colt II 1.2 EL,GL 55HP

6 reasons for Nissan Pixo 1.0 68KM manual in comparison to Mitsubishi Colt II 1.2 EL,GL 55HP

Reasons for

Maximal power

68 > 55 hp
The horsepower is a parameter that most of car fans pay the biggest attention to. In this comparison, it is the Nissan Pixo that has by 24 percent horsepower more in comparison to the Mitsubishi Colt II, which makes this car a bit quicker. Having more horsepower the Nissan Pixo should also provide somewhat better flexiblility in specific speeds.

Rear track

1,401 > 1,338 mm

Number of doors

5 > 3
There’s no doubts that the five-door Nissan Pixo is more convenient and if you regularly travel with more than one people then this car is only possible option for you. The strongest point of a five-door vehicle is that it’s not only easier for passengers to climb into the rear seats but it’s also easier to put luggage and cargo into the car when the rear seats are folded flat. However, three-door cars like the Mitsubishi Colt II generally look more dynamic and sporty and for those who rarely have more than one passengers in the car the Mitsubishi Colt II might be a good one, the more so for being a little bit cheaper than the same model with more doors.


1,470 > 1,362 mm
The higher a car is, the better is the comfort of boarding it and greater capacity of carrying massive amount of luggage to it. The difference that amounts to 108 mm to the advantage of the Nissan Pixo 1.0 68HP manual is little and should not be really noticeable.

Model release date

2008 > 1984

Front track

1,405 > 1,391 mm


5 reasons for Mitsubishi Colt II 1.2 EL,GL 55KM in comparison to Nissan Pixo 1.0 68HP manual

Reasons for

Trunk capacity

318 > 129 l
The boot of the Mitsubishi is 147 percent larger in relation to the Nissan Pixo. It is perceptible difference therefore in this category the Mitsubishi will be a way more useful. The larger the boot, the more luggage you can take with you on a journey.


1,635 > 1,600 mm
The width of the vehicle influences directly on passanger's inner room as well as stability of driving. The Mitsubishi Colt II is 2 percent wider in comparison to the Nissan Pixo 1.0 68HP manual. It is clearly perceptible by those sitting in front, who have more space for their elbows.

Fuel tank

44 > 34 l
The winner of these two vehicles in the category of fuel tank size is Mitsubishi Colt II 1.2 EL,GL 55HP which can carry by 29 % more fuel than the Nissan.


2,373 > 2,361 mm
The wheelbase of a car equals the length between its front and rear wheels. The wheelbase significantly affects the driving because of more appropriate vehicle's weight distribution. Mitsubishi has 1 % longer wheelbase distance in comparison to Nissan. Wheelbase dimensions are crucial to the balance and steering. Hence, the mass of Mitsubishi should be better distributed and driving should be easier and safer.


3,875 > 3,565 mm
The Mitsubishi Colt II is 310 mm longer than the Nissan Pixo 1.0 68HP manual. The length of the vehicle is significant when it comes to travelling comfort and space in the boot. The Mitsubishi Colt II 1.2 EL,GL 55HP preasumbly will be offering to it's users more room for legs. At the same time the Mitsubishi Colt II 1.2 EL,GL 55HP will be better driven ,however, the Nissan will be a bit easier to park due to shorter length of the body.

Cars specifications

Nissan Pixo 1.0 68HP manual Mitsubishi Colt II 1.2 EL,GL 55HP
    Gross trailer weight 205 kg -
    Price range popular popular
    Model release date 2008 1984
    Facelifting no no
    Class B B
By using this site, you agree to the storage and use of cookie files. OK