Suzuki Vitara 2015 vs Skoda Yeti 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 117 HP | 122 HP | |
| Torque: | 156 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Skoda Yeti is a more dynamic driving. Suzuki Vitara engine produces 5 HP less power than Skoda Yeti, whereas torque is 44 NM less than Skoda Yeti. Due to the lower power, Suzuki Vitara reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.9 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Suzuki Vitara is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Suzuki Vitara consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Yeti, which means that by driving the Suzuki Vitara over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Suzuki Vitara consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 780 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: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 24 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Suzuki Grand Vitara, Suzuki Swift, Suzuki SX4, Suzuki Liana | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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. 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: | 4.18 m | 4.22 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.61 m | 1.69 m | |
|
Suzuki Vitara is smaller. Suzuki Vitara is 5 cm shorter than the Skoda Yeti, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Suzuki Vitara is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 375 litres | 405 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
710 litres | no data | |
|
Skoda Yeti has more luggage space. Suzuki Vitara has 30 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Suzuki Vitara is 0.1 metres more than that of the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`730 | 1`940 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | below average | |
| 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 (€): | 11 800 | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Suzuki Vitara has
|
Skoda Yeti has
| |