Compare two cars

Compare any two cars and get our Virtual Adviser™ opinion

Car #1
Make
Model
Variant
Engine
Car #2
Make
Model
Variant
Engine

compare selected cars
1997. - 2001.
A - Micro car
hatchback, 3 door
front
Badges
Production
Vehicle class
Body style
Wheel drive
Safety
2002. - 2009.
B - City car
hatchback, 3 door
front

Dimensons & Outlines

3537 mm
1639 mm
1460 mm
131 liters
790 liters
35 liters
Length
Width
Height
Boot (min)
Boot (max)
Fuel tank
3490 mm
1540 mm
1340 mm
170 liters
450 liters
32 liters
1997 Seat Arosa
2002 Zastava Yugo Koral In

Engine

Volkswagen
1.4 AZE
Petrol
4 - Inline, 2 valves per cylinder
Nat. Asp.
1397 cc
60 hp
116 Nm
Engine
Fuel
Configuration
Aspiration
Displacement
Power
Torque
Petrol
4 - Inline, 2 valves per cylinder
Nat. Asp.
1302 cc
67 hp
95 Nm

Performance (manual gearbox)

manual gearbox - 5 gears
870 kg
14.1 s
160 km/h
8.5 l/100km
4.9 l/100km
6.2 l/100km
148 g/km
Gearbox type
Vehicle weight
Acc. 0-100
Top speed
Cons. (urban)
Cons. (highway)
Cons. (average)
CO2 emissions
manual gearbox - 5 gears
830 kg
13.8 s
155 km/h
l/100km
l/100km
l/100km
g/km

Performance (automatic gearbox)

automatic - 4 gears
900 kg
16.2 s
155 km/h
10.4 l/100km
6.2 l/100km
7.6 l/100km
181 g/km
Gearbox type
Vehicle weight
Acc. 0-100
Top speed
Cons. (urban)
Cons. (highway)
Cons. (average)
CO2 emissions
 
kg
s
km/h
l/100km
l/100km
l/100km
g/km

Expenses

950 EUR
Price from
250 EUR

Virtual Adviser's™ opinion

Overview

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 Volkswagen-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 60hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 67hp engine designed by FIAT.

Safety

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, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Spanish car offers a marginal difference of 5% more metal.

Reliability

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that both brands display similar results in faults and breakdowns, when all the models are taken into account. These are the results of an independent reasearch, while our visitors describe reliability of Seat with an average rating of 4.4, and models under the Zastava badge with 3.5 out of 5. The same official information place Arosa as average reliability-wise, and Yugo Koral In is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the Spanish car rank it on average as 4.5, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 1.8 out of 5.

Performance & Fuel economy

Zastava is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.3 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 155 kilometers per hour, 5km/h less 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!


Verdict

Seat is apparently more reliable, not too much, but just enough. 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. In any case that's my personal view, built upon all the data available to me. What should decide here though is the way you feel about the two vehicles, and I hope you'll find my guidelines useful in the process. 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.

Check a car by its VIN number