Skoda Superb 2006 vs Nissan Qashqai 2013
| Body: | Sedan | 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: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 163 HP | 141 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 196 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 10.1 seconds | |
| Skoda Superb engine produces 22 HP more power than Nissan Qashqai, whereas torque is 154 NM more than Nissan Qashqai. Despite the higher power, Skoda Superb reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 10.0 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Superb is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Skoda Superb consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Qashqai, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Skoda Superb could require 135 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Skoda Superb consumes 2.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Qashqai. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 940 km in combined cycle | |
| 810 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Audi A4 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan X-Trail, Nissan Serena | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Qashqai might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Skoda Superb 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: | 4.80 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.59 m | |
| Skoda Superb is 42 cm longer than the Nissan Qashqai, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Skoda Superb is 12 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 462 litres | 430 litres | |
|
Skoda Superb has more luggage capacity. Skoda Superb has 32 litres more trunk space than the Nissan Qashqai. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Superb is 1.1 metres more than that of the Nissan Qashqai, which means Skoda Superb can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`600 | 1`890 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 10 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Superb has
|
Nissan Qashqai has
| |