VS

Ford Puma vs Mitsubishi Colt comparison

Compare performance (168 HP vs 143 HP), boot space and price (23,900 £ vs 18,200 £ ) at a glance. Find out which car is the better choice for you – Ford Puma or Mitsubishi Colt?

Ford Puma vs Mitsubishi Colt: Key differences

Ford Puma

3 (11 Reviews)
rate
  • a bit more power
  • noticeably quicker 0–100 km/h

Mitsubishi Colt

  • clearly cheaper
  • clearly more efficient
  • a bit lighter

All details on performance, efficiency, range and trunk space can be found in the technical comparison below – including user reviews for both models.

Puma

Ford Puma vs. Mitsubishi Colt: A Detailed Comparison

The automotive market is rich with options, and when it comes to compact cars, the Ford Puma and Mitsubishi Colt stand out for different reasons. While the Puma offers an SUV experience with a rugged charm, the Colt sticks to its hatchback heritage, delivering efficiency and practicality. This article delves into the technical aspects and innovations of both vehicles to help you make an informed decision.

Colt

Powertrains and Performance

The Ford Puma impresses with its range of engine options, including petrol mild hybrid (MHEV) and electric versions. The petrol engines range from 125 to a robust 168 horsepower, enabling an exhilarating acceleration from 0-100 km/h in as little as 7.4 seconds. In comparison, the Mitsubishi Colt offers a smaller selection of engines, with a maximum output of 143 horsepower. Its performance peaks at 9.3 seconds for the 0-100 km/h sprint, which is decent but trails behind the Puma in terms of raw power.

Both vehicles feature front-wheel drive systems, but the Puma's powertrain options are more diverse, catering to drivers who prefer stronger performance or electric driving capabilities. The Colt, on the other hand, is focused more on economy, with impressive fuel consumption figures of as low as 4.2 L/100 km in its most efficient hybrid form.

Puma

Interior and Comfort Features

Each vehicle seats five passengers comfortably, but their overall designs cater to slightly different preferences. The Ford Puma’s interior boasts a modern flair with ample trunk space of 456 to 523 liters, making it practical for everyday use and family outings. The cabin is designed with user-friendly technology, ensuring a pleasant driving experience.

In contrast, the Mitsubishi Colt’s hatchback design translates into a smaller trunk capacity of 301 to 391 liters. While it focuses on enough space for daily errands and city driving, it does not quite match the Puma’s versatility in cargo space.

Dimensions and Efficiency

The Puma stands at 4186 mm in length and 1805 mm in width, providing a commanding presence on the road. It also excels in weight, ranging between 1316 to 1390 kg, which aids efficiency and handling. Its C02 efficiency class ranges from D to A, depending on the variant, making it an attractive option for environmentally conscious consumers.

On the other hand, the Colt, which measures 4053 mm in length and 1798 mm in width, is compact and agile – ideal for urban driving. Its curb weight varies between 1131 to 1380 kg, emphasizing lightness and efficiency. With C02 emissions ranging from 96 to 121 g/km, the Colt positions itself favorably in terms of environmental impact, particularly with its hybrid options.

Technological Innovations

Ford has equipped the Puma with advanced technology, including driver assistance systems that enhance safety and convenience. The integration of hybrid technology in the Puma not only expands its appeal but also improves fuel efficiency without compromising performance.

Mitsubishi has also embraced technology in the Colt, focusing particularly on navigation and multimedia systems to enhance the driving experience. However, it may not offer the same level of advanced features that the Puma provides, especially in hybrid support and driving dynamics.

Conclusion: Which One to Choose?

In summary, if you seek versatility, performance, and modern features, the Ford Puma is arguably the better choice with its range of engines, spacious interior, and robust technological advancements. However, for those prioritizing compactness and fuel efficiency, particularly in urban environments, the Mitsubishi Colt presents a worthwhile option with its hatchback practicality and economical performance.

Ultimately, the choice between the Ford Puma and Mitsubishi Colt will depend on your driving needs and personal preferences, making a test drive essential to identify which model fits your lifestyle best.

Frequently compared as well

Ford Puma
Mazda CX-30
VS
In the tussle between the cheeky Ford Puma and the stylish Mazda CX-30, the Puma serves up playful handling, clever practicality and sharper value, while the CX-30 rewards you with a more premium cabin and composed, grown-up refinement. Choose the Puma for everyday fun and sensible running costs; …
Ford Puma
VW T-Cross
VS
The Ford Puma and VW T‑Cross go head-to-head in the compact crossover class — one flirty and fun, the other sensible and steady — both promising SUV looks without the bulk. We’ll pit the Puma’s lively handling and clever storage tricks against the T‑Cross’s comfort-first setup and family-friendly …

Here’s where it gets real: The technical differences in detail

Puma

Costs and Efficiency:

Looking at overall running costs, both models reveal some interesting differences in everyday economy.

Mitsubishi Colt is clearly cheaper – starting at 18,200 £ , while the Ford Puma costs 23,900 £ . That’s a price difference of around 5,752 £.

Fuel consumption also shows a difference: the Mitsubishi Colt uses 4.2 L/100km and is clearly more efficient than the Ford Puma with 5.4 L/100km. The difference is about 1.2 L/100km.

Colt

Engine and Performance:

Power, torque and acceleration say a lot about how a car feels on the road. This is where you see which model delivers more driving dynamics.

When it comes to engine power, the Ford Puma offers a bit more power – delivering 168 HP compared to 143 HP. That’s roughly 25 HP more horsepower.

When accelerating from 0 to 100 km/h, the Ford Puma is noticeably quicker – completing the sprint in 7.4 s, while the Mitsubishi Colt takes 9.3 s. That’s about 1.9 s quicker.

There’s also a difference in torque: the Ford Puma delivers considerably more torque with 290 Nm compared to 160 Nm. That’s about 130 Nm more.

Puma

Space and Everyday Use:

Cabin size, boot volume and payload all play a role in everyday practicality. Here, comfort and flexibility make the difference.

Both vehicles offer seating for 5 people.

In terms of curb weight, Mitsubishi Colt is a bit lighter – 1,189 kg compared to 1,316 kg. The difference is around 127 kg.

When it comes to payload, the Ford Puma carries somewhat more – 469 kg compared to 385 kg. That’s a difference of about 84 kg.

Who wins the race in the data check?

The Ford Puma is far ahead overall in the objective data comparison.
This result only shows which model scores more points on paper – not which of the two cars feels right for you.

from £23,900
Puma

Ford Puma

  • Engine Type : Petrol MHEV, Electric
  • Transmission : Manuel, Automatic
  • Drive Type : Front-Wheel Drive
  • Power HP : 125 - 168 HP
  • Consumption L/100km : 5.4 - 5.9 L/100km
  • Consumption kWh/100km : 13 - 13.7 kWh/100km
  • Electric Range : 404 - 417 km
details
Ford Puma
Mitsubishi Colt

Costs and Consumption
View detailed analysis

Engine and Performance
View detailed analysis

Dimensions and Body
View detailed analysis

Ford Puma

The Ford Puma is a cheeky compact crossover that blends sporty styling with city-friendly practicality, giving drivers a surprisingly fun and composed ride. With clever storage tricks and a lively personality, it’s a smart pick for buyers who want enjoyment without fuss.

details
FORD_2020_PUMA_ST_02
FORD_2020_PUMA_ST_07
FORD_2020_PUMA_ST_11
FORD_2020_PUMA_ST_29

Reviews Ford Puma

3 (11 Reviews)
rate
Marco
29 Jan 2026, 11:36:48

Exceptional car — after a year of use, no problems, only pleasant surprises.

How do you mainly use this car? (optional): Commuter (short/medium distance)
Efficiency / Consumption & Range
Comfort & Interior
Driving Fun / Performance
Technology & Infotainment
Safety
Practicality / Trunk & Everyday Use
Value for Money
Dino
23 Dec 2025, 21:51:22

76,000 km in 4 years. Two services carried out. Nothing more.

How do you mainly use this car? (optional): Commuter (short/medium distance)
Efficiency / Consumption & Range
Comfort & Interior
Driving Fun / Performance
Technology & Infotainment
Safety
Practicality / Trunk & Everyday Use
Value for Money
Nigga nigga long
13 Dec 2025, 19:32:50

For nigga boys

How do you mainly use this car? (optional): Commuter (short/medium distance)
Efficiency / Consumption & Range
Comfort & Interior
Driving Fun / Performance
Technology & Infotainment
Safety
Practicality / Trunk & Everyday Use
Value for Money
Adolf hitler
13 Dec 2025, 19:32:08

Piece of rubbish
Looks gay

How do you mainly use this car? (optional): Company car / Business
Efficiency / Consumption & Range
Comfort & Interior
Driving Fun / Performance
Technology & Infotainment
Safety
Practicality / Trunk & Everyday Use
Value for Money

Mitsubishi Colt

The Mitsubishi Colt is a compact city hatch that blends sensible practicality with cheeky, no-nonsense styling, making it a confident companion for tight streets and daily errands. It may not be a playground for driving purists, but its easy-to-live-with manners, modest running costs and surprisingly roomy cabin make it a smart, sensible pick for urban buyers who value reliability over showmanship.

details
serpimg_IA2rJY

Reviews Mitsubishi Colt

No reviews yet. Share your experience and help others decide.

Frequently compared as well

Ford Puma
SEAT Arona
VS
In the competitive subcompact SUV segment, the Ford Puma stands out with its striking design and impressive driving dynamics, making it a popular choice for those seeking a sporty feel. Meanwhile, the SEAT Arona appeals to buyers with its spacious interior and efficient engine options, offering …
Ford Puma
Opel Corsa
VS
The Ford Puma is the cheeky compact crossover that pairs SUV looks and a surprisingly roomy boot with sprightly turbo punch, while the Opel Corsa is a tidy, affordable city hatch that’s nimbler in traffic and kinder on fuel bills. If you want a higher driving position, more practical load space and …
Ford Puma
Lexus LBX
VS
Small crossover clash: the Ford Puma brings cheeky driving dynamics and clever practicality, while the Lexus LBX counters with quiet refinement and premium flair. Pick the Puma if you want fun and value, choose the LBX if you crave comfort and a luxury badge — either way, you’ll be trading up from …
Ford Puma
Nissan Qashqai
VS
In the competitive arena of compact SUVs, the Ford Puma and Nissan Qashqai offer distinct advantages. The Ford Puma stands out with its sporty design and lively handling, making it an exciting choice for city driving. Meanwhile, the Nissan Qashqai provides a versatile and spacious ride, equipped …
Ford Puma
Renault R5
VS
The Ford Puma is a practical, punchy compact crossover — roomy, fun to drive and full of clever storage — while the Renault 5 returns as a cheeky, retro-styled city car (now electric), favouring charm and efficiency over outright versatility. If you need everyday space and a grin on country lanes, …
Ford Puma
VW ID.3
VS
If you want a cheeky, petrol-powered crossover with nimble handling and clever storage, the Ford Puma punches above its class; if you prefer silent, techy electric motoring with a roomy, refined cabin, the VW ID.3 is the smarter, greener choice. Choose the Puma for personality and everyday …
Ford Puma
Hyundai Kona
VS
In this exciting comparison, the Ford Puma takes on the Hyundai Kona, two standout competitors in the crossover segment. The Puma impresses with its engaging driving dynamics and stylish design, while the Kona offers a more tech-savvy interior and a range of efficient powertrains. Ultimately, both …
Ford Focus
Ford Puma
VS
The Ford Focus stays the sensible, sharply handling hatchback — roomier and more practical for long miles and family duty — while the Ford Puma trades rear-seat space for a taller stance, cheeky crossover looks and a clever MegaBox for weekend kit. Choose the Focus if you want involvement and …
Ford Puma
Mitsubishi Colt

Costs and Consumption
Price
23,900 - 36,300 £
Price
18,200 - 25,000 £
Consumption L/100km
5.4 - 5.9 L/100km
Consumption L/100km
4.2 - 5.3 L/100km
Consumption kWh/100km
13 - 13.7 kWh/100km
Consumption kWh/100km
-
Electric Range
404 - 417 km
Electric Range
-
Battery Capacity
-
Battery Capacity
-
co2
0 - 135 g/km
co2
96 - 119 g/km
Fuel tank capacity
-
Fuel tank capacity
39 - 42 L

Dimensions and Body
Body Type
SUV
Body Type
Hatchback
Seats
5
Seats
5
Doors
-
Doors
5
Curb weight
1,316 - 1,563 kg
Curb weight
1,189 - 1,380 kg
Trunk capacity
-
Trunk capacity
301 - 391 L
Length
-
Length
4,053 mm
Width
1,805 mm
Width
1,798 mm
Height
-
Height
1,439 mm
Max trunk capacity
-
Max trunk capacity
979 - 1,069 L
Payload
367 - 469 kg
Payload
381 - 385 kg

Engine and Performance
Engine Type
Petrol MHEV, Electric
Engine Type
Petrol, Full Hybrid
Transmission
Manuel, Automatic
Transmission
Manuel, Automatic
Transmission Detail
Manual Gearbox, Dual-Clutch Automatic, Reduction Gearbox
Transmission Detail
Manual Gearbox, Automatic Gearbox
Drive Type
Front-Wheel Drive
Drive Type
Front-Wheel Drive
Power HP
125 - 168 HP
Power HP
91 - 143 HP
Acceleration 0-100km/h
7.4 - 9.8 s
Acceleration 0-100km/h
9.3 - 12.2 s
Max Speed
-
Max Speed
174 km/h
Torque
170 - 290 Nm
Torque
148 - 160 Nm
Number of Cylinders
3
Number of Cylinders
3 - 4
Power kW
92 - 124 kW
Power kW
67 - 105 kW
Engine capacity
999 cm3
Engine capacity
999 - 1,598 cm3

General
Model Year
2,025 - 2,026
Model Year
2,023 - 2,025
CO2 Efficiency Class
D, A
CO2 Efficiency Class
D, C
Brand
Ford
Brand
Mitsubishi
What drivetrain options does the Ford Puma have?

The Ford Puma is available as Front-Wheel Drive.

DriveDuel uses data analysis and artificial intelligence to evaluate vehicle data and create content. Content is regularly reviewed and improved. The displayed prices are estimates based on German list prices, adjusted to the respective country’s VAT. Country-specific registration taxes are not included. This information is not legally binding.