Road Test: Suzuki Swift Sport vs. Mitsubishi Colt Ralliart

By Paul Maric - 29/Nov/2006

After driving the Mitsubishi Evo VIII and Evo IX, I can tell you that I instantly gained a lot of respect for Mitsubishi's performance front. So it was without doubt that I had to try the new Mitsubishi Colt Ralliart, as this souped up Mitsubishi Colt features a 1.5-litre MIVEC engine with a hair-dryer attached to add a bit more squirt. 

To top it all off, it also features the seats out of the Evo VIII…and whatever you do, don’t accidentally sit on the pointy edges.

It would have been lonesome to have no benchmark to test the Colt Ralliart against; so I enlisted the help of a newcomer to Suzuki’s booming Swift range – the Suzuki Swift Sport. Although it doesn’t have a turbo (or Evo VIII seats) – I thought I’d give it a go anyway, just to see what it was like.

These two cars are not super sports cars and won't set any records in the 0-100km/h benchmark, but they are very tenacious through corners, and the smile-per-dollar quotient these vehicles provide is hard to beat. After myself and the Editor put these vehicles through their paces we both walked away with smiles on our faces, as these little tackers prove that driving enjoyment isn't necessarily the preserve of vehicles with massive engine power.

And as I found out as the test progressed, this competition didn’t turn out anything like I had expected. After some hair raising lift-off-oversteer from the Suzuki and the odd bout of tyre frying, smoke billowing action from the Colt Ralliart, a verdict had been reached. Let the contest begin:

Drive: S4/5 M3.5/5

Grilles, privacy glass, and stereos aside, I’m sure you all want to know what these little pocket rockets are like on the tarmac.

Soon after turning over the Colt, mental images of my time with the Evo IX started to flood back. With only 300kms on the clock, our Colt Ralliart test vehicle was still literally a baby. 

In my opinion, and in ideal conditions, the engine should be run in moderately during the first one-thousand odd kilometres to ensure the engine internals are bedded in nicely. But, I had neither the time, nor leisure to accomplish such a feat, so this Colt's first thousand clicks involved several slams into the rev-limiter, along with many hard and fast gear shifts.

After a hearty lunch, fellow test driver Feann Torr and myself jumped behind the wheel and drove straight toward some twisty and narrow (and death defying) roads that this lovely country of ours has graced us with.

Much like the Evo, the Colt's turbo-slam is hard and bloody fast. Easily the first thing we noticed driving it. This meant that keeping the revs above 3000rpm would be ideal for constant and flowing power. The Swift on the other hand did not have a turbocharger and was naturally aspirated, meaning there was no back bending torque-slap, and it provided more of a constant and relaxing flow of force.

Once the corners started piling on, the fun really began. Both vehicles weighed in at under 1.2-tonnes, meaning they were both particularly nimble and agile through bends. 

The Colt weighed 1130kg unladen and felt more top heavy than the 1090kg Suzuki due to its taller body height and therefore higher centre of gravity. This meant that although the suspension was particularly stiff - harder than the Suzi's - there was a tendency for the car to get slightly un-easy when it was ordered to change directions in a hurry. It also translated to feistier lift-off oversteer tendencies. 

Luckily though, the Colt Ralliart had that base covered with an ESP system that Mitsubishi dubs ASC – Active Stability Control.

The ASC system was very relaxed, and when ordered to attention really didn’t intrude too much. The Aussie version of the Swift Sport misses out on any driver nannies. 

The only thing the driver is graced with on the Swift Sport is ABS brakes and a shitload of grip. During our first mountain drive the road was still damp in parts from rain earlier on in the day. And if you weren't on your best behaviour, the Suzuki was ready to bite back: on one occasion I had the back end jump out, knocking about five years off my life!

The Colt makes contact with the road through a set of insanely grippy Yokohama Advan tyres. The 205/45 R16 treads didn’t make a single noise during the torture test. They had seemingly unlimited grip and only lost traction when pushed too hard through a bend. They also managed to lose traction after ASC was switched off and the clutch was dropped from 4000rpm+…not sure how that happened.

Over in the other corner, the Suzuki was fitted with a set of Dunlops that bore 195/50 R16 profile rubber. These tyres were susceptible to more squealing and had less grip than the Yokos, as only so much can be expected from a cheaper tyre.

Both vehicles have firmer rides than their respective donor models. This is amplified in the Colt due to the Recaro seats. The Swift Sport uses MONROE shock absorbers and manages to hold the best ride in urban traffic and also through the twisty bends, and mid-corner bumps seemed to unsettle the Colt more than they did the Swift.

Five-speed manual gearboxes are common to both the Colt Ralliart and Swift Sport. The Colt's gearshift seemed to be ever so slightly tighter than the Swift's. On the downside, the Colt's gear shifter was far too small and the transition through gears wasn't quite as smooth as it was in the Swift. The GETRAG gearbox in the Colt is complimented by a ZF-Sachs clutch that is quite springy, but easy to snap in and out in a hurry. The clutch in the Suzuki has a far shorter pickup point and less travel, making it a bit tricky to drive with in stop-start traffic.

We were a bit concerned about the welfare of the Colt’s engine. As mentioned earlier, the engine had barely been run-in and after several sweeps of the same mountain stretch, there was a growing worry. Not only was there an awful smell exiting the car, there was also a very evident rattle coming from the front of the car at anything over 4000rpm. After a slight cool-down period, the Colt was back on the road, the smell had vanished but that rattle was still evident at times. We put it down to the car still being brand new and needing a few more clicks on board.

In terms of cornering, both vehicles were quite impressive. But, zipping in and out of tight corners was a job best saved for the Swift. After jumping back in the Suzuki and taking the lead, one thing I noticed quickly was that although the Colt caught me on the straight stretches of road, it was no match for the corners. The Suzuki could quite simply enter and exit corners faster than the Colt could. Body roll in the Swift was minimal and as such, sticking to the blacktop was something that the Suzuki did without even trying.

Braking was taken care of with minimal fuss. Both vehicles featured ventilated front discs and solid rear disks. During the very strenuous few hours of redline driving, neither vehicle exhibited any brake fade, but I think this was due - in part - to the little weight carried by either vehicle.

Engine: S3/5 M4/5

Pop the bonnet of the juiced-up Colt and you will find a turbocharged, 1.5-litre, 4-cylinder MIVEC engine that produces 113kW @ 6000rpm and 210Nm of torque @ 3500rpm.

The 45-litre petrol tank can officially sip 6.7L/100km. As I’m sure you can imagine, we achieved nowhere near this figure. But that’s a reasonable assumption, considering the engine had barely been run in and the driving style was far from conservative. An exclusive centre muffler and reductions of up to 27% in back pressure ensure the Colt's menacing exhaust note can be heard both inside and out. The exhaust seems to resonate deeply at around 2000rpm, assuring the driver with a sporty note. And to be honest, this sounds more like the growl from a tuned 2.0-litre four, than a 1.5-litre engine.

Under the Swift’s bonnet you will find a 1.6-litre, 4-cylinder engine that produces 92kW @ 6800rpm and 148Nm of torque @ 4800rpm.

The 43-litre petrol tank returns a fuel efficiency of 7.5L/100km and whilst we were driving the Suzuki’s socks off, the fuel efficiency managed to hover around the 8.5L/100km mark. That’s fantastic considering the rev-gauge was lingering around red-line majority of the time....

At 100km/h the Suzuki was sitting at over 3000rpm and it seemed odd that it could still manage to return such a commendable fuel efficiency. I felt that it could have easily done with a sixth gear.

Exterior: S3.5/5 M3.5/5

It’s not hard to see that the Colt has been hanging around with its big brother – the Lancer Evo. Not only are the seats shared with the Evo, but so is the style of bonnet grille. Unlike some vehicles (*cough…Monaro…cough*) this bonnet venting system actually works. It cools the engine by allowing an outlet for residual heat.

The Swift on the other hand looks far more sedate in comparison - but not boring by any means. The 16-inch alloy wheels and twin rear exhausts are the only real dead giveaways, otherwise, you would have to be concentrating pretty hard to notice the Sport tag affixed to this Swift. Both vehicles feature lowered body kits for a more 'street' racer look, and fog lamps feature on both vehicles as well. But in my mind, it’s the Colt that manages to secure shine more brightly in a visual sense, and it also gets privacy glass, which features darker tint for rear passengers and the tailgate.

Interior: S3/5 M3.5/5

With both vehicles priced at under $30,000 I wasn’t expecting much in terms of features or ingenuity. In fact, I would have been more than happy with a steering wheel and a seat; nobody needs a swanky sound system when arrowing along a road on the edge of a near 90-degree drop off.

Climbing in and out of the Colt can be an event at times. Here’s a tip, don’t ever try it when you’re tired or can’t be bothered with correctly co-ordinating your body, because falling on those lumpy seat edges can easily knock 30 years off your life with fright. 

Having said that, if you’re carrying a few more ‘kay-gees’ than the the average human, don’t try sitting in the Colt’s Recaros. I only just managed to sit comfortably in the Colt’s pews and I'm no where near overweight; a larger person would struggle to fit in these front sports seats due to the narrow and firm side bolsters.

The Suzuki’s seats on the other hand are far larger and more accommodating. Although they can support people with larger builds, they also manage to maintain decent side bolsters, ensuring that cornering at speed doesn’t fling you around the cabin too much. 

The only downside to the Suzuki’s seats was the rather cheap looking seat cover material. They look like a set of seat covers that you would find in the ‘go-fast-bits’ aisle at your local K-Mart or Super Cheap Auto, alongside the aluminium drift wings and faux air-intakes. Despite the cheaper look to the Suzuki’s seats, they still did a commendable job, but an honourable mention must go to the Colt’s Recaro seats; they barely flex an inch through tight, fast corners.

In terms of visibility, both vehicles seem to manage adequately. The only concern that arose was the rather chunky A-pillar in the Colt, which seemed to constantly get in the way. During regular driving, this wasn’t so much of an issue. It became a problem during sharp and tight cornering, as it became nearly impossible to peep around the next corner for oncoming traffic. 

Steering wheels? The Swift’s wheel wins hands down. It’s a lot chunkier and is far easier to handle in twisty segments of road. Although the Colt’s steering wheel isn’t too bad, it just doesn't have enough to hold onto with confidence.

Don’t get your hopes up if you’re after a decent sound system. Although the stereo in the Suzuki is nothing to write home about, the Colt’s simply makes you cringe at times. The 4-speaker arrangement distorts and makes an almighty fuss when you try and play some of your favourite golden oldies with a bit of volume. It does feature a 6-disc in-dash CD player that supports MP3 compatibility, but it’s not much use if the speakers are not much better than those found in the elevator at your local shopping mall. There are also no steering wheel buttons in the Colt, meaning that changing the radio station can be a bit distracting at times. The Suzuki on the other hand features station, volume, mode and mute buttons on the steering wheel.

In terms of aesthetics, both vehicles are on par with each other. The Suzuki has an integrated radio fascia, whilst the Colt’s fascia manages to stand out and look quite funky at night time, with a far more aftermarket look. The speedometer and tachometer cluster in the Suzuki looks far classier than the Colt, as chrome highlights make the tachometer stand out better, which makes quick glances at the dials an easy task.

Leg room varies quite dramatically in both vehicles. Although the Suzi looks tiny and abysmally inadequate from the outside, it actually contains more rear-passenger leg room than the Colt. No, it’s not magic. The Swift gains the extra space by having a tiny boot... Sorry. I mean hole at the back of the vehicle. This ‘boot’ has to be one of the smallest I have ever seen. This also means that the Swift does not have a spare tyre…not even a space saver. In my opinion, that’s a really bad thing. Although it’s a rarity, it’s not impossible to shred the exterior of a tyre, which would make it difficult to drive on safely. Although there is a repair kit with air compressor, I’d much prefer to have a space-saver tyre than no tyre at all.

The Colt’s boot on the other hand is quite decently sized, but this impacts on rear-passenger leg room quite substantially. Due to the Recaro seat design, along with a larger boot; this dramatically reduces rear leg room. In fact, with the driver and front-passenger seats in their respective positions, I doubt a child would even manage to fit comfortably in the rear. Although it’s not ideal, there is a space-saver tyre – it’s better than nothing.

Overall: S4/5 M3.5/5

I was expecting this vehicle comparison to be a total walkover by the Colt Ralliart. Not only does it cost nearly $6,000 more than the Swift Sport, it’s also bred by a company that has created cars such as the Mitsubishi Evo. Not only is the Colt more expensive than the Swift, it’s more expensive than the Volkswagen Polo GTI (tested earlier in the year).

But, if we put price aside for the moment, I still wouldn’t be overly impressed with the Ralliart Colt. It lacks the Swift’s safety features (side and curtain airbags) and can’t handle quite as tightly like the Swift through narrow and tight bends, despite better grip and more power. It's taller body creates unease and it's slightly heavier, which doesn't help.

Let’s not take all the limelight away from the Colt though. In a straight line, it mauls the Suzuki. The acceleration is impressive due to the car’s light mass and the seats do a marvellous job of holding everything and everyone together. In terms of styling, the Colt really grew on me. It looks far better in person and people seemed more interested in the Colt than they did the Swift.

At the end of our test, it was quite clear who the winner was. Although the Colt has that kick in the pants style and power about it, the Suzuki was simply so much more enjoyable to drive on the limits. Cornering speed was impressive considering the tyres weren't as sharp as the Colt's Yoko Advans, and if the revs were in the kept high, it could take off with minimal fuss and simply get the job done.

Although the Australian Suzuki Swift Sport misses out on stability control and the fancy keyless starting system, it still represents far better value than the Colt Ralliart. In our opinion, the Colt is overpriced and with the money saved after buying the Suzuki, you could really make it into a little rocket – strap on supercharger anyone?

And so comes the end of another vehicle comparison. Although the Colt seems so much more hardcore in comparison, the Suzuki is simply so much more fun to drive. But don’t take my word for it, take both vehicles for a test drive and see what you think.