i would have to disagree, taking a neutral view of Mitsubishi over the past 2 or 3 years, i don't think they had much of a choice.
For starters, because of the financial situation of the company, they needed Smart (Daimler Chrysler) to help out with the development of the Colt. Therefore dictate the shape of the car.
Secondly, The old Colts were never big sellers in UK and Europe. If they had gone for the same recipe, it could have been a disaster. They needed something fresh and different in such a competitive market segment.
Thirdly, The trend is shifting towards individuality and uniqueness. Look at the supermini market, if Mitsubishi had produced something like the current Ford Fiesta, it wouldn't have stood a chance. The only reason the Fiesta sells despite being so dull is its reputation. Something the Colt doesn't have.
Look at the New Suzuki Swift. The old car was nothing short of disaster, yet the new car looks nothing like the old car and is critically acclaimed by the motoring press.
And to address Sullie's point of it being a mini mpv, it has the practicalities of a mini mpv without the handling drawbacks! the seats fold, slide back and forth and even tumble forward to create a massive flat loading area.
And quality of the buildis fantastic. Sit in and drive a new Colt and it feels far bigger and more sophisticated than it really is.
I've lived with my Colt for 6 months now and would never swap it for something as dull as the Fiesta or previous generation Colt! The most under-rated car in its class because of the reputation of previous Colts!