Skoda Roomster 2010 vs Volvo V50 2007
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 175 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Skoda Roomster is more dynamic to drive. Skoda Roomster engine produces 5 HP more power than Volvo V50, whereas torque is 25 NM more than Volvo V50. Thanks to more power Skoda Roomster reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.7 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.9 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Roomster is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Roomster consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V50, which means that by driving the Skoda Roomster over 15,000 km in a year you can save 225 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Roomster consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V50. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 960 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 1140 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 790 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Roomster gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 440'000 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 Volvo V50 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 14 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Fabia, Seat Altea, Skoda Yeti | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo S40, Volvo C30 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Skoda Roomster might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Skoda Roomster 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.21 m | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.61 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Skoda Roomster is smaller, but higher. Skoda Roomster is 31 cm shorter than the Volvo V50, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Skoda Roomster is 15 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 480 litres | 417 litres | |
|
Skoda Roomster has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Skoda Roomster has 63 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V50. The Volvo V50 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Roomster is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volvo V50, which means Skoda Roomster can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`726 | 1`850 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Skoda Roomster has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo V50 has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Skoda Roomster, so Skoda Roomster quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Roomster has
|
Volvo V50 has
| |