Abarth 595 · Facelift 2016
Car comparison
Abarth 595 · Facelift 2016 Turismo 1.4 T-JetvsAbarth 695 XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonAbarth 695
XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Abarth 695 XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet
- Quickest 0-100 km/h7.3 s
- Lightest1,110 kg2,447 lb
- Best power-to-weight149 hp/t111 kW/t6.7 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption6.0 L/100 km39.2 mpg US47.1 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption7.9 L/100 km29.8 mpg US35.8 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption4.9 L/100 km48.0 mpg US57.6 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions139 g/km
- Best estimated range583 km362 mi
- Best overall score51/100
- Best performance score49/100
- Best economy score91/100
Abarth 595 Facelift 2016 Turismo 1.4 T-Jet
- Fastest top speed218 km/h135 mph
- Most powerful165 hp123 kW
- Highest torque230 Nm170 lb-ft
- Largest trunk185 L
- Best practicality score55/100
Specification comparison
| Model | Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 165hp123kW | 165hp123kW |
| Torque | 230Nm170lb-ft | 230Nm170lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,120kg2,469lb | 1,110kg2,447lb |
| Gross weight | 1,435kg3,164lb | 1,425kg3,142lb |
| Top speed | 218 km/h 135 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 71.4s99% target: 216 km/h / 134 mph Calculated | 70.1s99% target: 215 km/h / 133 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 7.4s | 7.3s |
| 0-200 km/h | 35.8s Calculated | 36.0s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 7.0s Calculated | 6.9s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 6.5L/100 km36.2mpg US43.5mpg UK | 6L/100 km39.2mpg US47.1mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 8.4L/100 km28mpg US33.6mpg UK | 7.9L/100 km29.8mpg US35.8mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 5.5L/100 km42.8mpg US51.4mpg UK | 4.9L/100 km48mpg US57.6mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 15.4s Calculated | 15.3s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 147hp/t110kW/t67hp/1000 lb Calculated | 149hp/t111kW/t67hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 205Nm/t137lb-ft/ton Calculated | 207Nm/t139lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 538km335mi Calculated | 583km362mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,368cc83cu in | 1,368cc83cu in |
| Length | 3,660mm144in | 3,657mm144in |
| Width | 1,627mm64in | 1,647mm65in |
| Height | 1,485mm58in | 1,485mm58in |
| Wheelbase | 2,300mm91in | 2,300mm91in |
| Front track | 1,415mm56in | - |
| Rear track | 1,408mm55in | - |
| Trunk volume | 185L | 185L |
| Max trunk volume | 610L | 610L |
| Doors | 3 | 3 |
| Seats | 4 | 4 |
| Fuel tank | 35L | 35L |
| CO2 emissions | 149g/km | 139g/km |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Abarth 595 Facelift 2016 Turismo 1.4 T-Jet: Power / Torque
- Abarth 695 XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | 5,500 rpm | 3,000 rpm | 5,750 rpm |
| Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet | 5,500 rpm | 3,000 rpm | 5,750 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 7.0 s | 6.9 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 7.4 s | 7.3 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 35.8 s | 36.0 s |
| Top speed | 218 km/h 135 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.6 s | 2.5 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.7 s | 6.7 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 10.1 s | 10.0 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.9 s | 12.9 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 15.4 s | 15.3 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 151 km/h 94 mph | 151 km/h 94 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | 165 hp 123 kW |
| Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet | 165 hp 123 kW |
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | 230 Nm 170 lb-ft |
| Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet | 230 Nm 170 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | 1,120 kg 2,469 lb |
| Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet | 1,110 kg 2,447 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | 218 km/h 135 mph |
| Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet | 217 km/h 135 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | 7.4 s |
| Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet | 7.3 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Abarth 695 XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet and Abarth 595 Facelift 2016 Turismo 1.4 T-Jet: 0.1 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | 6.5 L/100 km 36.2 mpg US 43.5 mpg UK |
| Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet | 6.0 L/100 km 39.2 mpg US 47.1 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Abarth 695 XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet and Abarth 595 Facelift 2016 Turismo 1.4 T-Jet: 0.5 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | 147 hp/t 110 kW/t 6.8 kg/hp |
| Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet | 149 hp/t 111 kW/t 6.7 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | 538 km 335 mi |
| Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet | 583 km 362 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | 165 hp 123 kW | 7.4 s | 218 km/h 135 mph |
| Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet | 165 hp 123 kW | 7.3 s | 217 km/h 135 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet |
| 6.5 L/100 km 36.2 mpg US 43.5 mpg UK | ||||||
| Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet |
| 6.0 L/100 km 39.2 mpg US 47.1 mpg UK | ||||||
Abarth 695 XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | 6.5 L/100 km 36.2 mpg US 43.5 mpg UK | 7.4 s |
| Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet | 6.0 L/100 km 39.2 mpg US 47.1 mpg UK | 7.3 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | 147 hp/t 110 kW/t 6.8 kg/hp | 6.5 L/100 km 36.2 mpg US 43.5 mpg UK |
| Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet | 149 hp/t 111 kW/t 6.7 kg/hp | 6.0 L/100 km 39.2 mpg US 47.1 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | Abarth595Facelift 2016Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | Abarth695XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 165 hp 123 kW | 165 hp 123 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 230 Nm 170 lb-ft | 230 Nm 170 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 7.4 s | 7.3 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 218 km/h 135 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,120 kg 2,469 lb | 1,110 kg 2,447 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 6.5 L/100 km 36.2 mpg US 43.5 mpg UK | 6.0 L/100 km 39.2 mpg US 47.1 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 538 km 335 mi | 583 km 362 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 149 g/km | 139 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 185 L 6.5 cu ft | 185 L 6.5 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 147 hp/t 110 kW/t 6.8 kg/hp | 149 hp/t 111 kW/t 6.7 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Abarth 595 Facelift 2016 Turismo 1.4 T-Jet | Abarth 695 XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 6.5 L/100 km36.2 mpg US43.5 mpg UK | 6 L/100 km39.2 mpg US47.1 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 11.38 LC100 km | 10.50 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 18.31 LC100 mi | 16.90 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 975 L258 US gal214 UK gal | 900 L238 US gal198 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,706 LC/year | 1,575 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Abarth 595 Facelift 2016 Turismo 1.4 T-Jet
- Has 1 km/h (1 mph) higher top speed
Pros
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Highest CO2 emissions
Abarth 695 XSR Yamaha 1.4 T-Jet
- Is 10 kg lighter
- Is 0.1 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Uses 0.5 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 1 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 45 km (28 mi) more estimated range
- Emits 10 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Lowest top speed
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























