Renault Captur 2012 vs Skoda Yeti 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 1.2 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: | 90 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 175 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.1 seconds | 11.4 seconds | |
|
Skoda Yeti is a more dynamic driving. Renault Captur engine produces 15 HP less power than Skoda Yeti, but torque is 45 NM more than Skoda Yeti. Due to the lower power, Renault Captur reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 3.7 | 6.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.1 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Captur is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Captur consumes 2.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Yeti, which means that by driving the Renault Captur over 15,000 km in a year you can save 360 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Captur consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1210 km in combined cycle | 980 km in combined cycle | |
| 1320 km on highway | 1110 km on highway | ||
| 880 km with real consumption | 840 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Captur gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 22 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster, Nissan Juke | Installed on at least 14 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Fabia, Seat Altea | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Captur 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. | |||
| Renault Captur 2012 1.5 engine: The engine has many modifications, is sufficiently common and spare parts are available. The fuel consumption/power ratio is good. The fuel injection system can be a problem and the timing belt change interval ... More about Renault Captur 2012 1.5 engine Skoda Yeti 2013 1.2 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its lifetime is relatively short. Vibration at idling speed tends to be excessive. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.12 m | 4.22 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.57 m | 1.69 m | |
|
Renault Captur is smaller. Renault Captur is 10 cm shorter than the Skoda Yeti, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Renault Captur is 12 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 377 litres | 405 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1235 litres | no data | |
|
Skoda Yeti has more luggage space. Renault Captur has 28 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Captur is 0.1 metres more than that of the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`749 | 1`879 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Renault Captur has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Yeti has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Renault Captur, so Renault Captur quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7800 | 8400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Captur has
|
Skoda Yeti has
| |