Ford KA 1997 vs Seat Arosa 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.7 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Ford KA) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Seat Arosa) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 105 NM | 115 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.4 seconds | 16.8 seconds | |
| Ford KA and Seat Arosa have the same engine power, but Ford KA torque is 10 NM less than Seat Arosa. Ford KA reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 4.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 4.6 l/100km | |
|
The Seat Arosa is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford KA consumes 2.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Seat Arosa, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford KA could require 345 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford KA consumes 2.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Seat Arosa. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 35 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| Seat Arosa gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 560'000 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 Seat Arosa engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Fiesta | Used also on Volkswagen Lupo | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Seat Arosa 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. | |||
| Seat Arosa 1998 1.7 engine: The engine is not very powerful or dynamic, but it is robust. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.62 m | 3.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.63 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.46 m | |
| Ford KA is 8 cm longer than the Seat Arosa, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Ford KA is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 186 litres | 130 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
724 litres | 790 litres | |
| Ford KA has 56 litres more trunk space than the Seat Arosa. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Seat Arosa (by 66 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford KA is 0.3 metres less than that of the Seat Arosa. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`265 | 1`445 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Seat Arosa has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford KA has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Seat Arosa, so Seat Arosa quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford KA has
|
Seat Arosa has
| |