Peugeot 106 1996 vs Seat Arosa 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 1.7 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 58 HP | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 95 NM | 115 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 18.5 seconds | 16.8 seconds | |
|
Seat Arosa is a more dynamic driving. Peugeot 106 engine produces 2 HP less power than Seat Arosa, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Seat Arosa. Due to the lower power, Peugeot 106 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 | 4.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.2 l/100km | 4.6 l/100km | |
|
The Seat Arosa is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Peugeot 106 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Seat Arosa, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Peugeot 106 could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Peugeot 106 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Seat Arosa. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 35 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 1040 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| Peugeot 106 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: | 280'000 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: | 9 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. Seat Arosa might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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: | 3.68 m | 3.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.59 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.38 m | 1.46 m | |
| Peugeot 106 is 14 cm longer than the Seat Arosa, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Peugeot 106 is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 215 litres | 130 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
953 litres | 790 litres | |
|
Peugeot 106 has more luggage capacity. Peugeot 106 has 85 litres more trunk space than the Seat Arosa. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Peugeot 106 (by 163 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Peugeot 106 is 0.5 metres more than that of the Seat Arosa, which means Peugeot 106 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`375 | 1`445 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Seat Arosa has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Peugeot 106 has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Seat Arosa, so Seat Arosa quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Peugeot 106 has
|
Seat Arosa has
| |