Ford EcoSport 2013 vs Skoda Yeti 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 122 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.7 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Skoda Yeti is a more dynamic driving. Ford EcoSport engine produces 3 HP more power than Skoda Yeti, but torque is 30 NM less than Skoda Yeti. Despite the higher power, Ford EcoSport reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Ford EcoSport is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford EcoSport consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Yeti, which means that by driving the Ford EcoSport over 15,000 km in a year you can save 225 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford EcoSport consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 1100 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 780 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 380'000 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 Skoda Yeti engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Skoda Yeti might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Skoda Yeti engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| Skoda Yeti 2013 1.4 engine: The engine is prone to increased vibration at idle. The engine is also very demanding on fuel quality. The timing chain has a low life expectancy and must be monitored. Turbine problems are also common. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.27 m | 4.22 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.69 m | |
| Ford EcoSport is 5 cm longer than the Skoda Yeti, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Ford EcoSport is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 333 litres | 405 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1238 litres | no data | |
|
Skoda Yeti has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Ford EcoSport has 72 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Yeti. This could mean that the Ford EcoSport uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford EcoSport is 0.3 metres more than that of the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`715 | 1`940 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Ford EcoSport has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Yeti has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Ford EcoSport, so Ford EcoSport quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 9200 | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford EcoSport has
|
Skoda Yeti has
| |