Nissan Juke 2010 vs Skoda Yeti 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 190 HP | 122 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.4 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Nissan Juke is more dynamic to drive. Nissan Juke engine produces 68 HP more power than Skoda Yeti, whereas torque is 40 NM more than Skoda Yeti. Thanks to more power Nissan Juke reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.2 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Yeti is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Juke consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Yeti, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Juke could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Juke consumes 2.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 450 km with real consumption | 780 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 | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 380'000 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: | 15 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Nissan X-Trail, Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Pulsar | 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. | |||
| 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: | 4.14 m | 4.22 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.57 m | 1.69 m | |
|
Nissan Juke is smaller. Nissan Juke is 9 cm shorter than the Skoda Yeti, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Juke is 12 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 251 litres | 405 litres | |
|
Skoda Yeti has more luggage space. Nissan Juke has 154 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Juke is 0.4 metres more than that of the Skoda Yeti. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`860 | 1`940 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | above 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 (€): | 6000 | 8400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Juke has
|
Skoda Yeti has
| |