Suzuki Grand Vitara 2008 vs Skoda Yeti 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.2 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: | 129 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 175 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.8 seconds | 11.8 seconds | |
| Suzuki Grand Vitara engine produces 24 HP more power than Skoda Yeti, whereas torque is 125 NM more than Skoda Yeti. Despite the higher power, Suzuki Grand Vitara reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.0 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Yeti is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Suzuki Grand Vitara consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Yeti, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Suzuki Grand Vitara could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Suzuki Grand Vitara consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 900 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Yeti gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Renault Scenic, Renault Megane, Renault Grand Scenic | Installed on at least 14 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Fabia, Seat Altea | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Skoda Yeti might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| 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 2009 1.2 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its lifetime is relatively short. Vibration at idling speed tends to be excessive. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.06 m | 4.22 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.70 m | 1.69 m | |
| Suzuki Grand Vitara is 16 cm shorter than the Skoda Yeti, 2 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 184 litres | 405 litres | |
|
Skoda Yeti has more luggage space. Suzuki Grand Vitara has 221 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Suzuki Grand Vitara is 0.1 metres less than that of the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`940 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Skoda Yeti has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Suzuki Grand Vitara has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Skoda Yeti, so Skoda Yeti quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4600 | 6600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Suzuki Grand Vitara has
|
Skoda Yeti has
| |