Nissan Qashqai II 1.2 DIG-T 115HP manual vs Skoda Yeti Minivan 1.2 TSI 105HP manual

Nissan Qashqai II 1.2 DIG-T 115HP manual

Source: wikipedia.org Kickaffe Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

20 reasons for

Nissan Qashqai II, model available from 2014.
It has 1.2 DIG-T 115HP petrol engine produced from 2014.
Drive on the front axle has manual, 6 speed gearbox.

8 reasons for

Skoda Yeti Minivan, model available from 2009.
It has 1.2 TSI 105HP petrol engine produced from 2009 to 2013.
Drive on the front axle has manual, 6 speed gearbox.

Skoda Yeti Minivan 1.2 TSI 105HP manual
Nissan

20 reasons for Nissan Qashqai II 1.2 DIG-T 115KM manual in comparison to Skoda Yeti Minivan 1.2 TSI 105HP manual

Reasons for
135

Maximal power

115 > 105 hp
The horsepower of the Nissan Qashqai II is by 10 % bigger in relation to the Skoda Yeti. While the difference is not big this should not affect the car performance largely.
112

Average consumption

5.6 > 6.3 l
The Nissan Qashqai II burns up 0.7 l fewer fuel in the mixed cycle in relation to the Skoda Yeti Minivan 1.2 TSI 105HP manual. The Nissan Qashqai II, being palced in „mini 4x4” class burns up by 1.9 l less amount of fuel than the average in its class. The average fuel consumption in this class in the combined cycle is 7.5 l.
59

Maximal torque

190 > 174 Nm
The Nissan has 16 Nm more torque in comparison to the Skoda. Although the majority of drivers do not take into consideration the maximum torque when buying a vehicle, it informs the best how fast a vehicle is speeding up. As far as these two vehicles are concerned the difference is little and for that reason you probably will not feel the difference.
56

Urban consumption

6.9 > 7.6 l
The Nissan uses of 0.7 l petrol less in city traffic compared to the Skoda Yeti Minivan. The Nissan Qashqai II, as a representative of mini 4x4 class, burns up of 2.7 l of fuel for every 100 km fewer than the medium level in its segment. The average fuel consumption in the “mini 4x4” segment equals to 9.6 l per 100 km.
50

Acceleration 0-100 km/h

11.3 > 11.8 s
The Skoda Yeti is relatively slower compared with the Nissan. The difference in the amount of 0.5 s is quite little and it should not be strongly taken by you into consideration when selecting the better one of these two vehicles.
38

Trunk capacity

438 > 418 l
The boot of the Nissan Qashqai II 1.2 DIG-T 115HP manual is only 5 % bigger than the Skoda Yeti. However, the difference is not big it would be fair to say that both vehicles have more of less the same boot space.
33

Top speed

183 > 175 km/h
The top speed possible to be reached by the ​​Nissan Qashqai II is greater in comparison to the Skoda by 5, which allows the Nissan Qashqai II 1.2 DIG-T 115HP manual to overcome quicker long distance of highway. The difference at the level of 8 kilometers per hour is small and will be insignificant in everyday driving.
24

Extra-urban consumption

4.7 > 5.9 l
22

Width

1,800 > 1,793 mm
Width of a car directly affects interior space for travelers as well as stability while driving. The Nissan is widther by 7 mm in relation to the Skoda and is not really worth considering. The medium for the „compact SUV” segment amounts to around 1,797 mm and is by 3 millimeters larger than the width of the Nissan.
19

Range

982 > 859 km
15

Wheelbase

2,644 > 2,578 mm
Nissan Qashqai II has 66 millimeters longer wheelbase in relation to the Skoda Yeti Minivan 1.2 TSI 105HP manual. A longer wheelbase gives more stable and comfortable ride, especially when driving fast. It also provides more storage space. However, cars having a longer wheelbase will not be as maneuverable as those with a shorter length between its axles.
12

Urban range

797 > 724 km
11

Extra-urban range

1,122 > 932 km
6

Length

4,380 > 4,222 mm
The Nissan Qashqai II is 158 millimeters longer when compared to the Skoda Yeti. The length of the vehicle is important in terms of driving comfort and space in the trunk. The Nissan probably will be offering to it's passangers more room for legs. At the same time the Nissan Qashqai II 1.2 DIG-T 115HP manual will be better driven ,however, the Skoda Yeti Minivan 1.2 TSI 105HP manual will be a little easier for parking because of shorter length of the body.
4

Rear track

1,563 > 1,537 mm
1

Model release date

2014 > 2009
Because of the fact that the Skoda Yeti was launched only 5 years before the Nissan Qashqai II, the distance in technology applied in both vehicles is not really huge, however, the Nissan Qashqai II may have slightly more advanced solutions applied in it.
0

Maximal power RPM

4,500 > 5,000 revolutions/minute
0

Gross trailer weight without breaks

679 > 668 kg
0

Front track

1,564 > 1,538 mm
0

Curb weight

1,314 > 1,268 kg

Skoda

8 reasons for Skoda Yeti Minivan 1.2 TSI 105KM manual in comparison to Nissan Qashqai II 1.2 DIG-T 115HP manual

Reasons for
30

Maximal torque RPM

1,545 > 2,005 revolutions/minute
A wider range and a lower value of revolutions at which the highest torque is produced has an impact on an engine’s effectiveness and dynamism. However, in order to get a whole view on an engine efficiency, it is recommended to see a torque graph.
19

Fuel tank

55 > 54 l
The Nissan Qashqai II 1.2 DIG-T 115HP manual is worst that the Skoda Yeti Minivan 1.2 TSI 105HP manual in the field of fuel tank size. The Skoda Yeti Minivan is able to take by 2 % more fuel than its competitor.
8

Maximum load capacity

620 > 542 kg
8

Gross trailer weight

1,505 > 1,199 kg
1

Height

1,691 > 1,590 mm
The higher a car is, the better is the comfort of getting in to it and greater possibility of carrying massive amount of stuff to it. The difference of 101 mm to the advantage of the Skoda Yeti Minivan 1.2 TSI 105HP manual is small and does not matter much.
0

Rim width

7 > 6 mm
0

Payload

1,880 > 1,860 kg
0

Tire profile

60 > 65 %

Cars specifications

Nissan Qashqai II 1.2 DIG-T 115HP manual Skoda Yeti Minivan 1.2 TSI 105HP manual
    Gross trailer weight 1,199 kg 1,505 kg
    Price range popular popular
    Model release date 2014 2009
    Facelifting no no
    Class compact SUV compact SUV
By using this site, you agree to the storage and use of cookie files. OK