We are here considering two somewhat similar cars, but we can't deny some of the obvious differences. For a start, they are not even classified under the same segment, with the Zastava being a city car and the Seat representing micro car vehicle class. The first one has a FIAT-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 55hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 50hp engine designed by Škoda.

Unfortunatelly, neither of the two vehicles was submitted to the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) testing. This makes it virtually impossible for me to pick one over the other and I'm generally against buying such cars as the safety should really always come first. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. The first vehicle is a city car and that gives it a marginal advantage over the micro car competitor, at least that's what statistics show. On the other hand, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Spanish car offers a marginal difference of 6% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that both brands display similar results in faults and breakdowns, when all the models are taken into account. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Zastava with an average rating of 3.4, and models under the Seat badge with 4.4 out of 5. Independent research findings rank Yugo Koral In as average reliability-wise, and Arosa is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the Serbian car rank it on average as 3.2, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.8 out of 5.

Zastava is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.7 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 155 kilometers per hour, 4km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy an obvious choice would be the Serbian car, averaging around 0 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (INF mpg), in combined cycle. That's INF% difference compared to the Spanish car!

Seat appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In this case though, it seems that both cars show similar levels of passenger protection all together, so that won't break a tie. But one thing that actually could is the performance, with Zastava offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Zastava. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser™, among more than 12.000 different ones in our database.