Skoda Octavia 1996 vs Kia Shuma 1998
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Skoda Octavia) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Kia Shuma) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 111 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 152 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Kia Shuma is a more dynamic driving. Skoda Octavia engine produces 21 HP less power than Kia Shuma, but torque is 58 NM more than Kia Shuma. Due to the lower power, Skoda Octavia reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 | 9.5 | |
|
The Skoda Octavia is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Skoda Octavia consumes 4.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Kia Shuma, which means that by driving the Skoda Octavia over 15,000 km in a year you can save 630 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1030 km in combined cycle | 520 km in combined cycle | |
| 1140 km on highway | 690 km on highway | ||
| Skoda Octavia 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: | 610'000 km | 350'000 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 Skoda Octavia engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Audi A3, Volkswagen Bora, Seat Leon | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Kia Carens, Kia Sephia, Kia Clarus | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Skoda Octavia might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.51 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.73 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.42 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Skoda Octavia is 3 cm longer than the Kia Shuma, 2 cm wider, while the height of Skoda Octavia is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 528 litres | 328 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1330 litres | 780 litres | |
|
Skoda Octavia has more luggage capacity. Skoda Octavia has 200 litres more trunk space than the Kia Shuma. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Octavia (by 550 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Octavia is 1 metres more than that of the Kia Shuma, which means Skoda Octavia can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`830 | 1`640 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Octavia has
|
Kia Shuma has
| |