Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the city car segment and utilize the same 3-door hatchback body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. The first one has a Mitsubishi-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 12-valves 75hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 84hp engine designed by Rover.

The fact that the Rover got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, isn't really an advantage, taken the poor 3-star rating it received. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. Both vehicles belong to the city car segment, which is generally not a very good thing safety-wise, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. On the other hand, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the British car offers a marginal difference of 8% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Rover does have a slight advantage, all the models observed together. These are the results of an independent reasearch, while our visitors describe reliability of Mitsubishi with an average rating of 4.6, and models under the Rover badge with 4.5 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Colt as average reliability-wise, and 25 is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the Japanese car rank it on average as 4.3, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.0 out of 5.

Mitsubishi is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.4 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 170 kilometers per hour, 5km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 6.8 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (42 mpg), in combined cycle.

Mitsubishi appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, the British car offers much better overall protection, which launches it ahead of the other contender. From there things take a different direction, with Mitsubishi offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... It's not difficult to say then that if I'd need to make a choice, it would definitely be the Rover. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. I suggest you spend two more minutes in order to find out which car, based on your needs and budget, would be picked by the virtual adviser™, among more than 12.000 different ones in our database.