Skoda Yeti 2013 vs Nissan Juke 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 122 HP | 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 200 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 8.4 seconds | |
|
Nissan Juke is a more dynamic driving. Skoda Yeti engine produces 68 HP less power than Nissan Juke, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Nissan Juke. Due to the lower power, Skoda Yeti reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 10.2 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Yeti is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Yeti consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Juke, which means that by driving the Skoda Yeti over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Yeti consumes 2.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Juke. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 600 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 760 km on highway | ||
| 780 km with real consumption | 450 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Yeti gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 300'000 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 Yeti engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Nissan X-Trail, Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Pulsar | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Skoda Yeti 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 Yeti 2013 1.4 engine: The engine is prone to increased vibration at idle. The engine is also very demanding on fuel quality. The timing chain has a low life expectancy and must be monitored. Turbine problems are also common. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.22 m | 4.14 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.57 m | |
|
Skoda Yeti is larger. Skoda Yeti is 9 cm longer than the Nissan Juke, 3 cm wider, while the height of Skoda Yeti is 12 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 405 litres | 251 litres | |
|
Skoda Yeti has more luggage capacity. Skoda Yeti has 154 litres more trunk space than the Nissan Juke. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Yeti is 0.4 metres less than that of the Nissan Juke. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`940 | 1`860 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Skoda Yeti has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Juke has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Skoda Yeti, so Skoda Yeti quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8400 | 6000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Yeti has
|
Nissan Juke has
| |