Seat Exeo ST
Car comparison
Seat Exeo ST 2.0 TSIvsAlfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon 2.4 JTDM 20V
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonAlfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon
2.4 JTDM 20V
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon 2.4 JTDM 20V
- Most powerful210 hp157 kW
- Highest torque400 Nm295 lb-ft
- Lowest combined fuel consumption6.9 L/100 km34.1 mpg US40.9 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption9.2 L/100 km25.6 mpg US30.7 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption5.5 L/100 km42.8 mpg US51.4 mpg UK
- Best estimated range1,014 km630 mi
- Largest trunk445 L
- Best economy score88/100
Seat Exeo ST 2.0 TSI
- Quickest 0-100 km/h7.6 s
- Fastest top speed235 km/h146 mph
- Lightest1,490 kg3,285 lb
- Best power-to-weight134 hp/t100 kW/t7.5 kg/hp
- Best overall score60/100
- Best performance score50/100
- Best practicality score82/100
Specification comparison
| Model | SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI | Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 200hp149kW | 210hp157kW |
| Torque | 280Nm207lb-ft | 400Nm295lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,490kg3,285lb | 1,635kg3,605lb |
| Gross weight | 2,050kg4,519lb | 2,185kg4,817lb |
| Top speed | 235 km/h 146 mph | 229 km/h 142 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 73.4s99% target: 233 km/h / 145 mph Calculated | 79.8s99% target: 227 km/h / 141 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 7.6s | 8.3s |
| 0-200 km/h | 28.5s Calculated | 33.4s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 7.2s Calculated | 7.9s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 7.9L/100 km29.8mpg US35.8mpg UK | 6.9L/100 km34.1mpg US40.9mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 11.1L/100 km21.2mpg US25.4mpg UK | 9.2L/100 km25.6mpg US30.7mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 6L/100 km39.2mpg US47.1mpg UK | 5.5L/100 km42.8mpg US51.4mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 15.4s Calculated | 16.0s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 134hp/t100kW/t61hp/1000 lb Calculated | 128hp/t96kW/t58hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 188Nm/t126lb-ft/ton Calculated | 245Nm/t164lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 886km551mi Calculated | 1,014km630mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,984cc121cu in | 2,387cc146cu in |
| Length | 4,670mm184in | 4,660mm183in |
| Width | 1,772mm70in | 1,828mm72in |
| Height | 1,430mm56in | 1,422mm56in |
| Wheelbase | 2,642mm104in | 2,700mm106in |
| Front track | 1,522mm60in | 1,578mm62in |
| Rear track | 1,523mm60in | 1,555mm61in |
| Trunk volume | 442L | 445L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,354L | 1,235L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 70L | 70L |
| CO2 emissions | - | 181g/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.
- Seat Exeo ST 2.0 TSI: Power / Torque
- Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon 2.4 JTDM 20V: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI | 5,700 rpm | 3,500 rpm | 5,950 rpm |
| Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V | 4,000 rpm | 1,500 rpm | 4,250 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI | Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 7.2 s | 7.9 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 7.6 s | 8.3 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 28.5 s | 33.4 s |
| Top speed | 235 km/h 146 mph | 229 km/h 142 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.7 s | 2.8 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.9 s | 7.1 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 10.3 s | 10.6 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 13.1 s | 13.6 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 15.4 s | 16.0 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 155 km/h 96 mph | 149 km/h 93 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI | 200 hp 149 kW |
| Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V | 210 hp 157 kW |
Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon 2.4 JTDM 20V has 10 hp more than Seat Exeo ST 2.0 TSI.
The biggest power difference is between Seat Exeo ST 2.0 TSI and Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon 2.4 JTDM 20V: 10 hp (7 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI | 280 Nm 207 lb-ft |
| Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI | 1,490 kg 3,285 lb |
| Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V | 1,635 kg 3,605 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI | 235 km/h 146 mph |
| Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V | 229 km/h 142 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI | 7.6 s |
| Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V | 8.3 s |
Although Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon 2.4 JTDM 20V has more power, Seat Exeo ST 2.0 TSI is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Seat Exeo ST 2.0 TSI and Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon 2.4 JTDM 20V: 0.7 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI | 7.9 L/100 km 29.8 mpg US 35.8 mpg UK |
| Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V | 6.9 L/100 km 34.1 mpg US 40.9 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon 2.4 JTDM 20V and Seat Exeo ST 2.0 TSI: 1.0 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI | 134 hp/t 100 kW/t 7.4 kg/hp |
| Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V | 128 hp/t 96 kW/t 7.8 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI | 886 km 551 mi |
| Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V | 1,014 km 630 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI | 200 hp 149 kW | 7.6 s | 235 km/h 146 mph |
| Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V | 210 hp 157 kW | 8.3 s | 229 km/h 142 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 | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V |
|
| ||||||||||||||
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 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI |
| 7.9 L/100 km 29.8 mpg US 35.8 mpg UK | ||||||
| Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V |
| 6.9 L/100 km 34.1 mpg US 40.9 mpg UK | ||||||
Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon 2.4 JTDM 20V 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 |
|---|---|---|
| SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI | 7.9 L/100 km 29.8 mpg US 35.8 mpg UK | 7.6 s |
| Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V | 6.9 L/100 km 34.1 mpg US 40.9 mpg UK | 8.3 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 |
|---|---|---|
| SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI | 134 hp/t 100 kW/t 7.5 kg/hp | 7.9 L/100 km 29.8 mpg US 35.8 mpg UK |
| Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V | 128 hp/t 96 kW/t 7.8 kg/hp | 6.9 L/100 km 34.1 mpg US 40.9 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | SeatExeo ST2.0 TSI | Alfa Romeo159 Sportwagon2.4 JTDM 20V | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 200 hp 149 kW | 210 hp 157 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 280 Nm 207 lb-ft | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 7.6 s | 8.3 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 235 km/h 146 mph | 229 km/h 142 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,490 kg 3,285 lb | 1,635 kg 3,605 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 7.9 L/100 km 29.8 mpg US 35.8 mpg UK | 6.9 L/100 km 34.1 mpg US 40.9 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 886 km 551 mi | 1,014 km 630 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | - | 181 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 442 L 15.6 cu ft | 445 L 15.7 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 134 hp/t 100 kW/t 7.5 kg/hp | 128 hp/t 96 kW/t 7.8 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 | Seat Exeo ST 2.0 TSI | Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon 2.4 JTDM 20V |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 7.9 L/100 km29.8 mpg US35.8 mpg UK | 6.9 L/100 km34.1 mpg US40.9 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 13.83 LC100 km | 12.08 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 22.25 LC100 mi | 19.43 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,185 L313 US gal261 UK gal | 1,035 L273 US gal228 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 2,074 LC/year | 1,811 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Seat Exeo ST 2.0 TSI
- Is 145 kg lighter
- Is 0.7 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 6 km/h (4 mph) higher top speed
- Has 6 hp/t better power-to-weight
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Lightest
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Cons
- Lowest power
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Smallest trunk
Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon 2.4 JTDM 20V
- Has 10 hp more
- Has 120 Nm more
- Uses 1.0 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 128 km (80 mi) more estimated range
- Has 3 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best estimated range
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Heaviest
- Lowest top speed
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























