Comments on: Capsule Review: 2005-2008 Mitsubishi Colt

By: Mirko Reinhardt

Mirko Reinhardt — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:12:24 +0000

@Michal
Where did you drive one? Europe didn’t get CVTs or foot-operated park brakes. All European Colts were made in the Netherlands at NedCar (the former DAF car factory that used to make the Mitsubishi-platform Volvo S/V40)

By: Michal

Michal — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:07:58 +0000

Test drove one a few years back. Pretty good handling and decent power. CVT transmission took a little getting used to. However I found the seats oddly uncomfortable. They seemed to cut off the circulation to my legs… leading to numbness after less than 10 minutes driving. It’s unusual as I own a similar vintage Lancer and have no issues with it. Must be a very different seat design.

The foot park brake is a demented idea, from a practicality and safety point of view. I have seen seasoned manual transmission drivers get into an auto and instinctively try to press the clutch… guess what would happen here. Foot brakes feel unnatural and there’s something odd about overruling decades of common sense design. And no, the Colt doesn’t have a front bench seat.

The indicator ticker was on the far left in a right hand drive car. It sounded odd… very odd for a Japanese built car. Shows through the European design underpinnings.

Cargo cover was an optional extra at time of test drive. I consider this an absolutely mandatory item for any hatch. Who wants potential thieves to have a good look at the goodies in your boot?

By: Mirko Reinhardt

Mirko Reinhardt — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 07:18:19 +0000

Two more thumbs down:

-no more diesels (used to be available with a Mercedes 1.5 3-cylinder)

-no more 1.5 NA gassers

I like the pre-facelift Colt, I also like the Forfour, with it’s glass roof and cloth-covered dashboard. Making the Forfour RWD like all the other smarts would have been better though.

By: Paul Niedermeyer

Paul Niedermeyer — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:38:34 +0000

Martin, please test a Golf VI with the 160hp 1.4TSI and DSG! It sounds excellent, with near-diesel economy.

By: James2

James2 — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:37:21 +0000

What is it with these designers who feel compelled to “improve” (aka uglify) a good thing. First it was the Mazda 3 and now this Colt. The old one looks epically better than the new one.

By: Martin Schwoerer

Martin Schwoerer — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:36:40 +0000

David, the red one is the old one, so I’m sorry to say we have different opinions on this. All the better for Mitsubishi if people like you appreciate the facelift.

By: David Holzman

David Holzman — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:58:56 +0000

I’m unclear as to which is the new and which is the old. The white one looks OK. The red one looks like a Pontiac from the front. Which means ugly.

By: RayH

RayH — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:43:15 +0000

I miss my ‘91 Plymouth Colt, it was a nice runabout bought with 150,000 miles, burned and leaked a quart or so of oil per tank of fuel, although quarts of oil were 69 cents at the time. I might still have it today had I not put a wheel bearing off so long it ruined the knuckle. The 92hp was pretty sprightly, and close to 40mpg to boot. There was no shame in the badge engineering, the key said mitsubishi, as well as the engine. An uncle had an early 80’s baby poop brown Dodge colt/champ?… I remember being little and the inside badge even saying by mitsubishi right under the colt/champ. And the 2 range gearbox… priceless.

Nice review, it would be interesting to see a current NA version had they continued this line (I believe 2000 was last year of the mitsu Mirage, which was the Colt, and still had the 92 hp engine available in 2000!)

By: SunnyvaleCA

SunnyvaleCA — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:48:08 +0000

This sounds like yet another vehicle that would be interesting over here if it weren’t for the US’s different pollution and crash standards. High time to make the Euro standards standard (as in: we can import Euro cars without going through hoops).