Last Update: Mar. 28, 2020, 5:57 a.m.
Home >>> >>> Alfa Romeo Mito and Chevrolet Matiz

What is Better Alfa Romeo Mito or Chevrolet Matiz?

Exterior

Alfa Romeo Mito Chevrolet Matiz

14 reasons to buy Alfa Romeo Mito

Engine and transmission
More valves per cylinder 4 vs 2 2 more valves per cylinder. The more valves = the better combustion of the fuel.
Better compression 9.8 vs 9.3 5% or 0.5 . The greater degree of compression = the less fuel need to produce the same power.
Piston diameter larger 72 mm vs 68.5 mm 5% or 3.5 mm larger. The larger diameter of cylinder = the greater filling ratio. Cons: increase emissions of toxic substances.
Piston stroke longer 84 mm vs 67.5 mm 20% or 16.5 mm. The longer stroke = lower fuel consumption and fewer emissions.
More engine power

120 bhp vs 63 bhp

88 kw. vs 47 kw.

48% or 57 bhp. More power of car = more top speed.
More torque 206 nM vs 87 nM 58% or 119 nM. More torque = faster acceleration.
Performance
Faster acceleration from 0 to 60 mph 8.8 sec. vs 12.9 sec. 4.1 sec.
More top speed 123 mph vs 94 mph 29 mph
Emissions
Less CO2 emissions 90 g/mile vs 98 g/mile 9% or 8 g/mile
Higher european emission standard EURO 4 vs EURO 3 1 generation
Weight and capacity
More minimum boot capacity 270 liters vs 145 liters 46% or 125 liters
More capacity of fuel tank 45 liters vs 38 liters 16% or 7 liters
Warranty
More warranty against corrosion 8 years vs 6 years 25% or 2 years
More standard warranty - Mileage 994406 miles vs 62150 miles 94% or 932256 miles

5 reasons to buy Chevrolet Matiz

Fuel consumption
Less fuel consumption (Combined cycle) 42.83 mpg vs 46.27 mpg 8% or 3.44 mpg
Less fuel consumption (Highway) 53.27 mpg vs 56.46 mpg 6% or 3.19 mpg
Less fuel consumption (City) 32.11 mpg vs 34.91 mpg 9% or 2.8 mpg
Other specs
Less weight 796 kg vs 1145 kg 44% or 349 kg Weight of the vehicle affects: fuel consumption, acceleration dynamic, braking distance, etc.
Less turning radius 4.6 meters vs 11.3 meters 146% or 6.7 meters

Neutral reasons Alfa Romeo Mito vs. Chevrolet Matiz

Engine and transmission
Engine speed (RPM) 5000 RPM vs 5400 RPM 7% or 400 less rpms.
Engine capacity 1368 cm3 vs 995 cm3 27% or 373 cm3 more
Engine position Front transverse vs Front transverse
Cylinders location In line vs In line
Fuel supply Fuel injection with turbocharging vs Distributor fuel injection
Turbocharging Yes vs Yes
Dimensions
Length 4063 mm vs 3495 mm 14% or 568 mm shorter
Width 1720 mm vs 1495 mm 13% or 225 mm wider
Height 1446 mm vs 1485 mm 3% or 39 mm lower
Wheels and tires
Wheelbase 2511 mm vs 2340 mm 7% or 171 mm more
Front tires size 195/55 R16 vs 155/65 R13
Rear tires size 195/55 R16 vs 155/65 R13
Type of wheels 16" steel vs 4.5J13 13" steel
*Specs may vary depending on configurations and year of production(taken parameters of last released versions)