BMW i3 2017 vs Seat Ateca 2016
| Comparing electrical vehicle (EV) with combustion engine (ICE) one is a complex task, but we are doing our best. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Body: | Hatchback | Crossover / SUV | |
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
| Engine: | 0.6 Hybrid | 1.0 Petrol | |
| Hybrid engines (BMW i3) offer better fuel economy and lower emissions than petrol engines, especially in city driving with frequent stops. Petrol (Seat Ateca) engines, however, are typically less expensive to buy and maintain, and offer more consistent performance on highways. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 38 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 56 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.1 seconds | 11 seconds | |
| BMW i3 engine produces 77 HP less power than Seat Ateca, whereas torque is 144 NM less than Seat Ateca. Despite less power, BMW i3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Consumption: | 0.6 l/100km | 5.2 l/100km | |
| Fuel cost per 100km: | no data | 10.30 € | |
|
Change fuel prices per unit to adjust the calculation to the fuel prices in your country. Petrol€/l | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 9 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1500 km in combined cycle | 960 km in combined cycle | |
| BMW i3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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 (Seat Ateca) 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 i3) 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: | 4.01 m | 4.34 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.60 m | 1.60 m | |
|
BMW i3 is smaller. BMW i3 is 33 cm shorter than the Seat Ateca, 3 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 260 litres | 510 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1100 litres | no data | |
|
Seat Ateca has more luggage space. BMW i3 has 250 litres less trunk space than the Seat Ateca. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.9 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW i3 is 0.9 metres less than that of the Seat Ateca, which means BMW i3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`760 kg | 1`830 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`365 kg | 1`205 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 395 kg | 625 kg | |
| BMW i3 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 58 procentiem less than Seat Ateca. Therefore, Seat Ateca is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 16 200 | 13 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW i3 has
|
Seat Ateca has
| |