Skoda Octavia III Combi
Car comparison
Skoda Octavia III Combi RS 2.0 TSIvsJaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonJaguar XF Sportbrake (X260)
2.0
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Skoda Octavia III Combi RS 2.0 TSI
- Quickest 0-100 km/h7.0 s
- Fastest top speed245 km/h152 mph
- Lightest1,412 kg3,113 lb
- Best power-to-weight163 hp/t121 kW/t6.1 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption6.4 L/100 km36.8 mpg US44.1 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions149 g/km
- Largest trunk610 L
- Best overall score66/100
- Best performance score56/100
- Best economy score90/100
- Best practicality score88/100
Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0
- Most powerful250 hp186 kW
- Highest torque365 Nm269 lb-ft
- Best estimated range1,088 km676 mi
Specification comparison
| Model | SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 230hp172kW | 250hp186kW |
| Torque | 350Nm258lb-ft | 365Nm269lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,412kg3,113lb | 1,705kg3,759lb |
| Gross weight | 1,978kg4,361lb | - |
| Top speed | 245 km/h 152 mph | 241 km/h 150 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 68.5s99% target: 243 km/h / 151 mph Calculated | 73.6s99% target: 239 km/h / 148 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 7.0s | 7.1s |
| 0-200 km/h | 24.0s Calculated | 26.1s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 6.7s Calculated | 6.8s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 6.4L/100 km36.8mpg US44.1mpg UK | 6.8L/100 km34.6mpg US41.5mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 8.1L/100 km29mpg US34.9mpg UK | - |
| Fuel consumption highway | 5.4L/100 km43.6mpg US52.3mpg UK | - |
| Quarter mile | 14.9s Calculated | 15.0s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 163hp/t121kW/t74hp/1000 lb Calculated | 147hp/t109kW/t67hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 248Nm/t166lb-ft/ton Calculated | 214Nm/t143lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 781km485mi Calculated | 1,088km676mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,984cc121cu in | 1,997cc122cu in |
| Length | 4,685mm184in | 4,955mm195in |
| Width | 1,814mm71in | 1,987mm78in |
| Height | 1,452mm57in | 1,496mm59in |
| Wheelbase | 2,680mm106in | 2,960mm117in |
| Front track | 1,535mm60in | 1,605mm63in |
| Rear track | 1,506mm59in | 1,607mm63in |
| Ground clearance | 127mm5in | 110mm4in |
| Trunk volume | 610L | 565L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,740L | 1,700L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 50L | 74L |
| CO2 emissions | 149g/km | 155g/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.
- Skoda Octavia III Combi RS 2.0 TSI: Power / Torque
- Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | 4,700-6,200 rpm | 1,500-4,600 rpm | 6,450 rpm |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 | 5,500 rpm | 1,200-4,500 rpm | 5,750 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 6.7 s | 6.8 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 7.0 s | 7.1 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 24.0 s | 26.1 s |
| Top speed | 245 km/h 152 mph | 241 km/h 150 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.7 s | 2.6 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.7 s | 6.7 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.9 s | 9.9 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.7 s | 12.7 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 14.9 s | 15.0 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 162 km/h 100 mph | 158 km/h 98 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | 230 hp 172 kW |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 | 250 hp 186 kW |
Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0 has 20 hp more than Skoda Octavia III Combi RS 2.0 TSI.
The biggest power difference is between Skoda Octavia III Combi RS 2.0 TSI and Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0: 20 hp (15 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 | 365 Nm 269 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | 1,412 kg 3,113 lb |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 | 1,705 kg 3,759 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | 245 km/h 152 mph |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 | 241 km/h 150 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | 7.0 s |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 | 7.1 s |
Although Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0 has more power, Skoda Octavia III Combi RS 2.0 TSI is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Skoda Octavia III Combi RS 2.0 TSI and Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0: 0.1 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | 6.4 L/100 km 36.8 mpg US 44.1 mpg UK |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK |
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | 163 hp/t 121 kW/t 6.1 kg/hp |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 | 147 hp/t 109 kW/t 6.8 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | 781 km 485 mi |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 | 1,088 km 676 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | 230 hp 172 kW | 7.0 s | 245 km/h 152 mph |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 | 250 hp 186 kW | 7.1 s | 241 km/h 150 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 | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
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 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI |
| 6.4 L/100 km 36.8 mpg US 44.1 mpg UK | ||||||
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 |
| 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK | ||||||
Skoda Octavia III Combi RS 2.0 TSI 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 |
|---|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | 6.4 L/100 km 36.8 mpg US 44.1 mpg UK | 7.0 s |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK | 7.1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | 163 hp/t 121 kW/t 6.1 kg/hp | 6.4 L/100 km 36.8 mpg US 44.1 mpg UK |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 | 147 hp/t 109 kW/t 6.8 kg/hp | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 230 hp 172 kW | 250 hp 186 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft | 365 Nm 269 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 7.0 s | 7.1 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 245 km/h 152 mph | 241 km/h 150 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,412 kg 3,113 lb | 1,705 kg 3,759 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 6.4 L/100 km 36.8 mpg US 44.1 mpg UK | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 781 km 485 mi | 1,088 km 676 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 149 g/km | 155 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 610 L 21.5 cu ft | 565 L 20.0 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 163 hp/t 121 kW/t 6.1 kg/hp | 147 hp/t 109 kW/t 6.8 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 | Skoda Octavia III Combi RS 2.0 TSI | Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 6.4 L/100 km36.8 mpg US44.1 mpg UK | 6.8 L/100 km34.6 mpg US41.5 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 11.20 LC100 km | 11.90 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 18.02 LC100 mi | 19.15 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 960 L254 US gal211 UK gal | 1,020 L269 US gal224 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,680 LC/year | 1,785 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Skoda Octavia III Combi RS 2.0 TSI
- Is 293 kg lighter
- Is 0.1 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 4 km/h (2 mph) higher top speed
- Uses 0.4 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 16 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 45 L more trunk volume
- Emits 6 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Lowest power
Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0
- Has 20 hp more
- Has 15 Nm more
- Has 307 km (191 mi) more estimated range
Pros
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
- Highest CO2 emissions
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























