Skoda Rapid 2012 vs Nissan Pulsar 2014
Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
---|---|---|---|
Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 86 HP | 115 HP | |
Torque: | 160 NM | 190 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 10.7 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): | 5.1 | 5.0 | |
Real fuel consumption: | 6.2 l/100km | 6.6 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 litres | 46 litres | |
Full fuel tank distance: | 1070 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
1240 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
880 km with real consumption | 690 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 km | 280'000 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 years | 5 years | |
Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Volkswagen Caddy, Skoda Fabia, Audi A1 | Installed 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: | yes | no | |
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 m | 4.39 m | |
Width: | 1.71 m | 1.77 m | |
Height: | 1.46 m | 1.52 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 litres | 385 litres | |
Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1490 litres | 1395 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 meters | 10.2 meters | |
Gross weight (kg): | 1`615 | 1`750 | |
Safety: | |||
Skoda Rapid scores higher in safety tests. | |||
Quality: | below average | average | |
Average price (€): | 6200 | 7200 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Rapid has
|
Nissan Pulsar has
| |