Skoda Yeti 2013 vs Suzuki Vitara 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 122 HP | 117 HP | |
| Torque: | 200 NM | 156 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Skoda Yeti is more dynamic to drive. Skoda Yeti engine produces 5 HP more power than Suzuki Vitara, whereas torque is 44 NM more than Suzuki Vitara. Thanks to more power Skoda Yeti reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Suzuki Vitara is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Yeti consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Vitara, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Skoda Yeti could require 150 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Yeti consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Vitara. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 900 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 680 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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 24 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Suzuki Grand Vitara, Suzuki Swift, Suzuki SX4, Suzuki Liana | |
| 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. Suzuki Vitara 2015 1.6 engine: A simple and robust engine, not particularly demanding in terms of fuel quality. High engine timing chain lifetime. Tends to increase oil consumption, head gasket failures may occur. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.22 m | 4.18 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.61 m | |
|
Skoda Yeti is larger. Skoda Yeti is 5 cm longer than the Suzuki Vitara, 2 cm wider, while the height of Skoda Yeti is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 405 litres | 375 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 710 litres | |
|
Skoda Yeti has more luggage capacity. Skoda Yeti has 30 litres more trunk space than the Suzuki Vitara. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Yeti is 0.1 metres less than that of the Suzuki Vitara. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`955 | 1`730 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Suzuki Vitara has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Yeti has serious deffects in 75 percent more cases than Suzuki Vitara, so Suzuki Vitara quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7200 | 11 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Yeti has
|
Suzuki Vitara has
| |