Skoda Rapid 2012 vs Nissan Pulsar 2014

 
Skoda Rapid
2012 - 2017
Nissan Pulsar
2014 - 2018
Gearbox: ManualManual
Engine: 1.2 Petrol1.2 Petrol
Camshaft drive: Timing chainTiming chain

Performance

Power: 86 HP115 HP
Torque: 160 NM190 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 11.8 seconds10.7 seconds
Nissan Pulsar is a more dynamic driving.
Skoda Rapid engine produces 29 HP less power than Nissan Pulsar, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Nissan Pulsar. Due to the lower power, Skoda Rapid reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 5.15.0
Real fuel consumption: 6.2 l/100km6.6 l/100km
The Skoda Rapid is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise.
By specification Skoda Rapid consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Pulsar, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Skoda Rapid could require 15 litres more fuel.
But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Skoda Rapid consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Pulsar.
Fuel tank capacity: 55 litres46 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 1070 km in combined cycle910 km in combined cycle
1240 km on highway1060 km on highway
880 km with real consumption690 km with real consumption
Skoda Rapid gets more mileage on one fuel tank.
Ground clearance: 136 mm (5.4 inches)156 mm (6.1 inches)
Because of the higher ground clearance, Nissan Pulsar 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. Note, however, that this Nissan Pulsar version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions.

Engines

Average engine lifespan: 350'000 km280'000 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 Rapid engine could be longer.
Engine production duration: 5 years5 years
Engine spread: Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Volkswagen Caddy, Skoda Fabia, Audi A1Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Juke
In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Skoda Rapid might be a better choice in this respect.
Hydraulic tappets: yesno
The Skoda Rapid engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure.
Skoda Rapid 2012 1.2 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its lifespan is relatively low. There tends to be increased vibration at idling speed. Problems with the fuel pressure pump may be the first sign of a petrol smell in the oil. ...  More about Skoda Rapid 2012 1.2 engine 

Dimensions

Length: 4.48 m4.39 m
Width: 1.71 m1.77 m
Height: 1.46 m1.52 m
Skoda Rapid is 10 cm longer than the Nissan Pulsar, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Skoda Rapid is 5 cm lower.
Trunk capacity: 550 litres385 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down
1490 litres1395 litres
Skoda Rapid has more luggage capacity.
Skoda Rapid has 165 litres more trunk space than the Nissan Pulsar. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Rapid (by 95 litres).
Turning diameter: 10.2 meters10.2 meters
Gross weight (kg): 1`6151`750
Safety:
Skoda Rapid scores higher in safety tests.
Quality:
below average

average
Average price (€): 62007200
Pros and Cons: Skoda Rapid has
  • more full fuel tank mileage
  • longer expected engine lifespan
  • roomier boot
  • higher safety
  • lower price
Nissan Pulsar has
  • more power
  • more dynamic
  • higher ground clearance
  • fewer faults
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv