BMW 3 series 2024 vs Skoda Octavia 2009
| Comparing electrical vehicle (EV) with combustion engine (ICE) one is a complex task, but we are doing our best. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Hybrid | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Hybrid engines (BMW 3 series) excel in urban environments with superior fuel efficiency and lower emissions during stop-and-go driving. Diesel engines (Skoda Octavia), however, are more fuel-efficient on long highway trips and provide greater torque for towing and heavy loads. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 184 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is more dynamic to drive. BMW 3 series engine produces 44 HP more power than Skoda Octavia, but torque is 20 NM less than Skoda Octavia. Thanks to more power BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Consumption: | 1.1 l/100km + 22.2 kWh/100km | 5.9 l/100km | |
| Fuel cost per 100km: | 8.70 € | 10.80 € | |
|
Change fuel prices per unit to adjust the calculation to the fuel prices in your country. Petrol€/lElectricity€/kWhDiesel€/l | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | no data | 930 km in combined cycle | |
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Skoda Octavia) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW 3 series) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.71 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.83 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.45 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is larger, but slightly lower. BMW 3 series is 14 cm longer than the Skoda Octavia, 6 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | 580 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1420 litres | 1630 litres | |
|
Skoda Octavia has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, This could mean that the BMW 3 series uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Octavia (by 210 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 1.2 metres more than that of the Skoda Octavia, which means BMW 3 series can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`420 kg | 2`030 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`895 kg | 1`445 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 525 kg | 585 kg | |
| BMW 3 series load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 11 procentiem less than Skoda Octavia. Therefore, Skoda Octavia is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 24 000 | 3400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Skoda Octavia has
| |