Skoda Roomster 2010 vs Skoda Yeti 2009
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 86 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 NM | 175 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.6 seconds | 11.8 seconds | |
|
Skoda Yeti is a more dynamic driving. Skoda Roomster engine produces 19 HP less power than Skoda Yeti, whereas torque is 15 NM less than Skoda Yeti. Due to the lower power, Skoda Roomster reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.7 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Roomster is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Roomster consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Yeti, which means that by driving the Skoda Roomster over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Roomster consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 960 km in combined cycle | 900 km in combined cycle | |
| 1120 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 820 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 330'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 6 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 14 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Fabia, Seat Altea | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Skoda Yeti might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Skoda Roomster 2010 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 Roomster 2010 1.2 engine Skoda Yeti 2009 1.2 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its lifetime is relatively short. Vibration at idling speed tends to be excessive. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.21 m | 4.22 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.61 m | 1.69 m | |
|
Skoda Roomster is smaller. Skoda Roomster and Skoda Yeti are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 480 litres | 405 litres | |
|
Skoda Roomster has more luggage capacity. Skoda Roomster has 75 litres more trunk space than the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Roomster is 0.2 metres more than that of the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`676 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Skoda Yeti has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Roomster has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Skoda Yeti, so Skoda Yeti quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 6600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Roomster has
|
Skoda Yeti has
| |