Seat Ibiza 1994 vs Volkswagen Sharan 2000
| Body: | Hatchback | Minivan / MPV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.6 seconds | 12.1 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Sharan is a more dynamic driving. Seat Ibiza engine produces 60 HP less power than Volkswagen Sharan, whereas torque is 65 NM less than Volkswagen Sharan. Due to the lower power, Seat Ibiza reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 | 10.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.7 l/100km | 11.6 l/100km | |
|
By specification Seat Ibiza consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Sharan, which means that by driving the Seat Ibiza over 15,000 km in a year you can save 240 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Seat Ibiza consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Sharan. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 370 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Sharan 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: | 420'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Vento, Seat Toledo, Seat Cordoba | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A4, 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. Volkswagen Sharan might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Volkswagen Sharan 2000 1.8 engine: The weakest link in this engine is the turbine, whose failure is contributed to by a faulty catalytic converter. The oil pump and chain tensioner also tend to have problems. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.81 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.73 m | |
|
Seat Ibiza is smaller. Seat Ibiza is 82 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Sharan, 17 cm narrower, while the height of Seat Ibiza is 31 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 270 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
580 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Seat Ibiza is 1.1 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Sharan, which means Seat Ibiza can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`430 | 1`900 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | Volkswagen Sharan has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Seat Ibiza has serious deffects in 140 percent more cases than Volkswagen Sharan, so Volkswagen Sharan quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Seat Ibiza has
|
Volkswagen Sharan has
| |