Skoda Superb 2002 vs BMW 5 series 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.5 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
|
BMW 5 series is a more dynamic driving. Skoda Superb engine produces 20 HP less power than BMW 5 series, the torque is the same for both cars. Due to the lower power, Skoda Superb reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.3 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.9 l/100km | 9.5 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Superb is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Superb consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 5 series, which means that by driving the Skoda Superb over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Superb consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 5 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Skoda Superb) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW 5 series) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A4, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 3 sērija, BMW Z4, BMW Z3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Skoda Superb might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Skoda Superb 2002 1.8 engine: The weakest link in this engine is the turbine, whose failure is contributed to by a faulty catalytic converter. The oil pump and chain tensioner also tend to have problems. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.78 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.44 m | |
| Skoda Superb is 2 cm longer than the BMW 5 series, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Skoda Superb is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 460 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Superb is 0.8 metres more than that of the BMW 5 series, which means Skoda Superb can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`300 | 2`005 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Skoda Superb has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for BMW 5 series, so Skoda Superb quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 2800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.0/10 | 8.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Superb has
|
BMW 5 sērija has
| |