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 5-door hatchback body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific diesel engine choice they offer. The first one has a VM Motori-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 95hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 68hp engine designed by Peugeot.

A starting point here would be to take a look at the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests which were performed on both of the cars, with the same number of safety stars gained in the process. 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, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? Furthermore, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, Mazda 2 offers a marginal difference of 1% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Mazda does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. 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 Mazda badge with 4.4 out of 5. Independent research findings rank Colt as average reliability-wise, and 2 is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as Colt rank it on average as 5.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.0 out of 5.

Mitsubishi is way more agile, reaching 100km/h in 5.1 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 180 kilometers per hour, 20km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 4.6 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (62 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, Mazda 2 offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. From there things take a different direction, with Mitsubishi outracing its opponent in any situation possible, making it better choice for boy racers. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say 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.