Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. Having both cars powered by petrol engines and utilizing the 3-door hatchback body style within the same 'City car' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (front for the Mitsubishi and 4 x 4 in the case of the Subaru). 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, 8-valves 68hp engine designed by Suzuki.

Unfortunatelly, neither of the two vehicles was submitted to the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) testing. This makes it virtually impossible for me to pick one over the other and I'm generally against buying such cars as the safety should really always come first. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. 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. Furthermore, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, Colt offers a marginal difference of 9% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that both brands display similar results in faults and breakdowns, at least on all of the models level. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Mitsubishi with an average rating of 4.6, and models under the Subaru badge with 4.2 out of 5. Unfortunatelly, I don't have enough insight that would allow me to comment in more details on the specific models level. That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as Colt rank it on average as 4.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.3 out of 5.

Mitsubishi is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.1 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 170 kilometers per hour, 15km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 6.9 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (41 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, Colt offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. It all continues in the same direction, with Mitsubishi being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. Fuel consumption is more or less the same. It's not difficult to say then that if I'd need to make a choice, it would definitely be the Mitsubishi. Nevertheless, let's not forget that people have different preferences and needs, so what really counts is your personal feel. I'm only here to help. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.