Skoda Kodiaq 2016 vs BMW X3 2017
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Skoda Kodiaq is available with both manual and automatic gearboxes, whereas BMW X3 is available only with automatic gearbox. | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Skoda Kodiaq is available with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive, while BMW X3 can be equipped only with four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Skoda Kodiaq also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 1.4 - 2.0 (petrol, diesel) | 2.0 - 3.0 (petrol, diesel, hybrid) | |
| Both cars are available with petrol and diesel engines. BMW X3 is available also with hybrid engines. Hybrid engines offer superior fuel efficiency and reduced emissions compared to conventional engine types. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 - 240 HP | 184 - 382 HP | |
| Torque: | 200 - 500 NM | 290 - 700 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.9 - 11.9 seconds | 4.8 - 8.3 seconds | |
| In general, BMW X3 are available with more powerful and dynamic engines than Skoda Kodiaq. Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.8 - 8.0 | 5.4 - 10.2 | |
|
Skoda Kodiaq petrol engines consumes on average 2.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than BMW X3. On average, a Skoda Kodiaq with diesel engines consumes about the same amount of fuel per 100 km as a BMW X3. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 187 - 197 mm (7.4 - 7.8 inches) | 204 mm (8 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, BMW X3 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.69 m | 4.71 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.68 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Skoda Kodiaq is 2 cm shorter than the BMW X3, 1 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 835 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
2065 litres | 1600 litres | |
|
Skoda Kodiaq has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, The BMW X3 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Kodiaq (by 465 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.2 meters | 12.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Kodiaq is 0.1 metres more than that of the BMW X3. | |||
| Gross weight: | ~ 2`313 kg | ~ 2`486 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 1`641 kg | ~ 1`868 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 672 kg | ~ 618 kg | |
| Skoda Kodiaq load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 8 procentiem more than BMW X3. Therefore, Skoda Kodiaq is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 19 800 | 25 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Kodiaq has
|
BMW X3 has
| |