Seat Arosa 1998 vs Peugeot 106 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Diesel | 1.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 58 HP | |
| Torque: | 115 NM | 95 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.8 seconds | 18.5 seconds | |
|
Seat Arosa is more dynamic to drive. Seat Arosa engine produces 2 HP more power than Peugeot 106, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Peugeot 106. Thanks to more power Seat Arosa reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.4 | 5.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 4.6 l/100km | 5.2 l/100km | |
|
The Seat Arosa is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Seat Arosa consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Peugeot 106, which means that by driving the Seat Arosa over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Seat Arosa consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Peugeot 106. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 35 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 1040 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| Peugeot 106 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 280'000 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: | 8 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volkswagen Lupo | Used only for this car | |
| 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: | yes | no | |
| 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: | 3.54 m | 3.68 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.59 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.38 m | |
| Seat Arosa is 14 cm shorter than the Peugeot 106, 5 cm wider, while the height of Seat Arosa is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 130 litres | 215 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
790 litres | 953 litres | |
|
Peugeot 106 has more luggage space. Seat Arosa has 85 litres less trunk space than the Peugeot 106. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Peugeot 106 (by 163 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.1 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Seat Arosa is 0.5 metres less than that of the Peugeot 106, which means Seat Arosa can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`445 | 1`375 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | below 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 (€): | 800 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Seat Arosa has
|
Peugeot 106 has
| |