Chevrolet Epica 2007 vs Skoda Superb 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.1 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
| Chevrolet Epica engine produces 13 HP less power than Skoda Superb, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Skoda Superb. Despite less power, Chevrolet Epica reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Superb is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Chevrolet Epica consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Superb, which means that by driving the Chevrolet Epica over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Chevrolet Epica consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Superb. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 530'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Chevrolet Epica engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Chevrolet Captiva, Opel Antara, Chevrolet Cruze | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Audi A4 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Chevrolet Epica might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.47 m | |
| Chevrolet Epica and Skoda Superb are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 480 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Epica is 1 metres less than that of the Skoda Superb, which means Chevrolet Epica can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`600 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 1800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.5/10 | 9.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Epica has
|
Skoda Superb has
| |