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 Seat being a micro car and the Zastava representing city car vehicle class. The first one has a Škoda-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 50hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 55hp engine designed by FIAT.

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 second 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, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Spanish car offers a marginal difference of 6% more metal.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that both brands display similar results in faults and breakdowns, at least on all of the models level. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Seat with an average rating of 4.4, and models under the Zastava badge with 3.4 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Arosa as average reliability-wise, and Yugo Koral In is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the Spanish car rank it on average as 3.8, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.2 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. Nevertheless, let's not forget that people have different preferences and needs, so what really counts is your personal feel. I'm only here to help. 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™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.