Mini Countryman 2010 vs Skoda Yeti 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 184 HP | 122 HP | |
| Torque: | 260 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.3 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Mini Countryman is more dynamic to drive. Mini Countryman engine produces 62 HP more power than Skoda Yeti, whereas torque is 60 NM more than Skoda Yeti. Thanks to more power Mini Countryman reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.6 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Yeti is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mini Countryman consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Yeti, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mini Countryman could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mini Countryman consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 750 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 480 km with real consumption | 780 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Yeti gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 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: | 7 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mini Cooper S | 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.10 m | 4.22 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.56 m | 1.69 m | |
|
Mini Countryman is smaller. Mini Countryman is 13 cm shorter than the Skoda Yeti, width is practically the same , while the height of Mini Countryman is 13 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 405 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1170 litres | no data | |
|
Skoda Yeti has more luggage space. Mini Countryman has 55 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mini Countryman is 1.3 metres more than that of the Skoda Yeti, which means Mini Countryman can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`865 | 1`940 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Mini Countryman has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Yeti has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mini Countryman, so Mini Countryman quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8800 | 8800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mini Countryman has
|
Skoda Yeti has
| |