Skoda Octavia 1997 vs BMW 3 series 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.7 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 68 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 130 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 18.9 seconds | 14 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is a more dynamic driving. Skoda Octavia engine produces 22 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 60 NM less than BMW 3 series. Due to the lower power, Skoda Octavia reaches 100 km/h speed 4.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.0 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Octavia is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Octavia consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that by driving the Skoda Octavia over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Octavia consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 52 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1050 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 1040 km on highway | ||
| 1100 km with real consumption | 780 km with real consumption | ||
| 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. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Skoda Octavia) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW 3 series) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.51 m | 4.21 m | |
| Width: | 1.73 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.39 m | |
|
Skoda Octavia is larger. Skoda Octavia is 30 cm longer than the BMW 3 series, 3 cm wider, while the height of Skoda Octavia is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 528 litres | 325 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1330 litres | 1030 litres | |
|
Skoda Octavia has more luggage capacity. Skoda Octavia has 203 litres more trunk space than the BMW 3 series. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Octavia (by 300 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Octavia is 0.8 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means Skoda Octavia can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 1`675 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Skoda Octavia has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Skoda Octavia, so Skoda Octavia quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Octavia has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |