Chrysler Voyager 2001 vs Skoda Roomster 2006

 
Chrysler Voyager
2001 - 2004
Skoda Roomster
2006 - 2010
Body: Minivan / MPVEstate car / wagon
Gearbox: ManualManual
Engine: 2.4 Petrol1.9 Diesel

Performance

Power: 147 HP105 HP
Torque: 226 NM240 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 12.4 seconds11.5 seconds
Skoda Roomster is a more dynamic driving.
Chrysler Voyager engine produces 42 HP more power than Skoda Roomster, but torque is 14 NM less than Skoda Roomster. Despite the higher power, Chrysler Voyager reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 10.15.4
Real fuel consumption: 11.1 l/100km5.8 l/100km
The Skoda Roomster is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy.
By specification Chrysler Voyager consumes 4.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Roomster, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler Voyager could require 705 litres more fuel.
By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler Voyager consumes 5.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Roomster.
Fuel tank capacity: 75 litres55 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 740 km in combined cycle1010 km in combined cycle
920 km on highway1190 km on highway
670 km with real consumption940 km with real consumption
Skoda Roomster gets more mileage on one fuel tank.

Dimensions

Length: 4.80 m4.20 m
Width: 2.00 m1.68 m
Height: 1.75 m1.61 m
Chrysler Voyager is larger.
Chrysler Voyager is 60 cm longer than the Skoda Roomster, 32 cm wider, while the height of Chrysler Voyager is 14 cm higher.
Trunk capacity: no data450 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down
no data1780 litres
Turning diameter: 11.5 meters10.5 meters
The turning circle of the Chrysler Voyager is 1 metres more than that of the Skoda Roomster, which means Chrysler Voyager can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces.
Gross weight (kg): 1`6001`770
Safety: no data
Quality:
low

average
Average price (€): 14002200
Pros and Cons: Chrysler Voyager has
  • more power
  • lower price
Skoda Roomster has
  • more dynamic
  • lower fuel consumption
  • more full fuel tank mileage
  • better manoeuvrability
  • fewer faults
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv