Seat Cordoba 1999 vs Skoda Fabia 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 126 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 14.1 seconds | |
|
Seat Cordoba is more dynamic to drive. Seat Cordoba engine produces 25 HP more power than Skoda Fabia, whereas torque is 19 NM more than Skoda Fabia. Thanks to more power Seat Cordoba reaches 100 km/h speed 3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Fabia is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Seat Cordoba consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Fabia, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Seat Cordoba could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Seat Cordoba consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Fabia. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 560 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 720 km on highway | 800 km on highway | ||
| 530 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Fabia 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: | 480'000 km | 370'000 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 Cordoba engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Octavia, Seat Ibiza, Seat Toledo | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Octavia, Audi A2 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Seat Cordoba 1999 1.6 engine: This is a simple and reliable engine with an impressive lifespan when properly maintained. However, many of its issues stem from air leaks, so checking hoses and the intake manifold is essential. The ignition ... More about Seat Cordoba 1999 1.6 engine Skoda Fabia 2004 1.4 engine: Engine is known for its simplicity, compact design, and overall reliability. Many complaints from owners are related to power loss or fluctuating idle, often caused by issues with the throttle body, EGR valve, or air leaks ... More about Skoda Fabia 2004 1.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.16 m | 4.22 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.65 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.45 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Seat Cordoba is 6 cm shorter than the Skoda Fabia, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Seat Cordoba is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 426 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1225 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Seat Cordoba is 0.4 metres more than that of the Skoda Fabia, which means Seat Cordoba can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`000 | 1`610 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | Skoda Fabia has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Seat Cordoba has serious deffects in 85 percent more cases than Skoda Fabia, so Skoda Fabia quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Seat Cordoba has
|
Skoda Fabia has
| |