Skoda Octavia III Combi
Car comparison
Skoda Octavia III Combi RS 2.0 TSIvsJaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0d
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonJaguar XF Sportbrake (X260)
2.0d
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0d
- Quickest 0-100 km/h6.7 s
- Most powerful240 hp179 kW
- Highest torque500 Nm369 lb-ft
- Lowest combined fuel consumption5.8 L/100 km40.6 mpg US48.7 mpg UK
- Best estimated range1,138 km707 mi
- Best overall score68/100
- Best performance score59/100
- Best economy score91/100
Skoda Octavia III Combi RS 2.0 TSI
- Fastest top speed247 km/h153 mph
- Lightest1,392 kg3,069 lb
- Best power-to-weight165 hp/t123 kW/t6.1 kg/hp
- Lowest CO2 emissions142 g/km
- Largest trunk610 L
- Best practicality score88/100
Specification comparison
| Model | SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 230hp172kW | 240hp179kW |
| Torque | 350Nm258lb-ft | 500Nm369lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,392kg3,069lb | 1,805kg3,979lb |
| Gross weight | 1,958kg4,317lb | - |
| Top speed | 247 km/h 153 mph | 241 km/h 150 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 66.9s99% target: 245 km/h / 152 mph Calculated | 71.8s99% target: 239 km/h / 148 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 6.8s | 6.7s |
| 0-200 km/h | 23.0s Calculated | 25.0s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 6.5s Calculated | 6.4s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 6.2L/100 km37.9mpg US45.6mpg UK | 5.8L/100 km40.6mpg US48.7mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 7.7L/100 km30.5mpg US36.7mpg UK | - |
| Fuel consumption highway | 5.3L/100 km44.4mpg US53.3mpg UK | - |
| Quarter mile | 14.7s Calculated | 14.7s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 165hp/t123kW/t75hp/1000 lb Calculated | 133hp/t99kW/t60hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 251Nm/t168lb-ft/ton Calculated | 277Nm/t185lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 806km501mi Calculated | 1,138km707mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,984cc121cu in | 1,999cc122cu 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 | 116mm5in |
| Trunk volume | 610L | 565L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,740L | 1,700L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 50L | 66L |
| CO2 emissions | 142g/km | 153g/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) 2.0d: 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)2.0d | 4,000 rpm | 1,500 rpm | 4,250 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 6.5 s | 6.4 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 6.8 s | 6.7 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 23.0 s | 25.0 s |
| Top speed | 247 km/h 153 mph | 241 km/h 150 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.6 s | 2.5 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.7 s | 6.5 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.8 s | 9.7 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.5 s | 12.4 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 14.7 s | 14.7 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 164 km/h 102 mph | 160 km/h 100 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)2.0d | 240 hp 179 kW |
Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0d has 10 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) 2.0d: 10 hp (7 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)2.0d | 500 Nm 369 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | 1,392 kg 3,069 lb |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d | 1,805 kg 3,979 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 | 247 km/h 153 mph |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d | 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 | 6.8 s |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d | 6.7 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0d and Skoda Octavia III Combi RS 2.0 TSI: 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 | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d | 5.8 L/100 km 40.6 mpg US 48.7 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 | 165 hp/t 123 kW/t 6.1 kg/hp |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d | 133 hp/t 99 kW/t 7.5 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | 806 km 501 mi |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d | 1,138 km 707 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 | 6.8 s | 247 km/h 153 mph |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d | 240 hp 179 kW | 6.7 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)2.0d |
|
| ||||||||||||||
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 |
| 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | ||||||
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d |
| 5.8 L/100 km 40.6 mpg US 48.7 mpg UK | ||||||
Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0d 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 | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | 6.8 s |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d | 5.8 L/100 km 40.6 mpg US 48.7 mpg UK | 6.7 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 | 165 hp/t 123 kW/t 6.1 kg/hp | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK |
| JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d | 133 hp/t 99 kW/t 7.5 kg/hp | 5.8 L/100 km 40.6 mpg US 48.7 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | SkodaOctavia III CombiRS 2.0 TSI | JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 230 hp 172 kW | 240 hp 179 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft | 500 Nm 369 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 6.8 s | 6.7 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 247 km/h 153 mph | 241 km/h 150 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,392 kg 3,069 lb | 1,805 kg 3,979 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | 5.8 L/100 km 40.6 mpg US 48.7 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 806 km 501 mi | 1,138 km 707 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 142 g/km | 153 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 610 L 21.5 cu ft | 565 L 20.0 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 165 hp/t 123 kW/t 6.1 kg/hp | 133 hp/t 99 kW/t 7.5 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) 2.0d |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 6.2 L/100 km37.9 mpg US45.6 mpg UK | 5.8 L/100 km40.6 mpg US48.7 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 10.85 LC100 km | 10.15 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 17.46 LC100 mi | 16.33 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 930 L246 US gal205 UK gal | 870 L230 US gal191 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,628 LC/year | 1,523 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Skoda Octavia III Combi RS 2.0 TSI
- Is 413 kg lighter
- Has 6 km/h (4 mph) higher top speed
- Has 32 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 45 L more trunk volume
- Emits 11 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Highest top speed
- Lightest
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest power
- Highest combined fuel consumption
Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0d
- Has 10 hp more
- Has 150 Nm more
- Is 0.1 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Uses 0.4 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 331 km (206 mi) more estimated range
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Heaviest
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
- Highest CO2 emissions
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























