Car comparison

Skoda Octavia III Combi · Facelift 2017 RS 2.0 TSIvsJaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0d

Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.

New comparison

Skoda Octavia III Combi · Facelift 2017

RS 2.0 TSI

230 hp1984 ccGasolineFWDDual-clutchTurbochargedWagon / estate2017-2018
VS

Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260)

2.0d

240 hp1999 ccDieselAWDAutomaticTurbochargedWagon / estate2015-2018

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/h
    6.7 s
  • Most powerful
    240 hp
    179 kW
  • Highest torque
    500 Nm
    369 lb-ft
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
    5.8 L/100 km
    40.6 mpg US
    48.7 mpg UK
  • Best estimated range
    1,138 km
    707 mi
  • Best overall score
    68/100
  • Best performance score
    59/100
  • Best economy score
    91/100

Specification comparison

Specification comparison
ModelSkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSIJaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d
Power
230hp172kW
240hp179kW
Torque
350Nm258lb-ft
500Nm369lb-ft
Curb weight
1,387kg3,058lb
1,805kg3,979lb
Gross weight
1,953kg4,306lb
-
Top speed
245 km/h
152 mph
241 km/h
150 mph
To 99% top speed
69.1s99% target: 243 km/h / 151 mph
Calculated
71.8s99% target: 239 km/h / 148 mph
Calculated
0-100 km/h
7.0s
6.7s
0-200 km/h
24.1s
Calculated
25.0s
Calculated
0-60 mph
6.7s
Calculated
6.4s
Calculated
Fuel consumption
6.6L/100 km35.6mpg US42.8mpg UK
5.8L/100 km40.6mpg US48.7mpg UK
Fuel consumption city
8.5L/100 km27.7mpg US33.2mpg UK
-
Fuel consumption highway
5.5L/100 km42.8mpg US51.4mpg UK
-
Quarter mile
14.9s
Calculated
14.7s
Calculated
Power-to-weight
166hp/t124kW/t75hp/1000 lb
Calculated
133hp/t99kW/t60hp/1000 lb
Calculated
Torque-to-weight
252Nm/t169lb-ft/ton
Calculated
277Nm/t185lb-ft/ton
Calculated
Estimated range
758km471mi
Calculated
1,138km707mi
Calculated
Displacement
1,984cc121cu in
1,999cc122cu in
Length
4,689mm185in
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
1,544mm61in
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
149g/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 Facelift 2017 RS 2.0 TSIJaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0dPowerTorque
  • Skoda Octavia III Combi Facelift 2017 RS 2.0 TSI: Power / Torque
  • Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0d: Power / Torque
Dyno simulation data table
VehiclePeak power RPMPeak torque RPMMax engine speed
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSI4,700-6,200 rpm1,500-4,600 rpm6,450 rpm
JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d4,000 rpm1,500 rpm4,250 rpm

Acceleration curve

Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.

Acceleration and drag-race table
MetricSkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSIJaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d
Acceleration checkpoints
0-60 mph
0-97 km/h
6.7 s
6.4 s
0-100 km/h
0-62 mph
7.0 s
6.7 s
0-200 km/h
0-124 mph
24.1 s
25.0 s
Top speed
245 km/h
152 mph
241 km/h
150 mph
Drag race simulation
60 ft
18 m
2.7 s
2.5 s
330 ft
101 m
6.7 s
6.5 s
1/8 mile
201 m
9.9 s
9.7 s
1000 ft
305 m
12.7 s
12.4 s
1/4 mile
402 m
14.9 s
14.7 s
Trap speed
1/4 mile
402 m
161 km/h
100 mph
160 km/h
100 mph

Power comparison

Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW

Chart data table
VehicleValue
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 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 Facelift 2017 RS 2.0 TSI.

The biggest power difference is between Skoda Octavia III Combi Facelift 2017 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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSI
1,387 kg
3,058 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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSI
245 km/h
152 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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSI7.0 s
JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d6.7 s

The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0d and Skoda Octavia III Combi Facelift 2017 RS 2.0 TSI: 0.3 s.

Fuel consumption comparison

Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK

Chart data table
VehicleValue
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSI
6.6 L/100 km
35.6 mpg US
42.8 mpg UK
JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d
5.8 L/100 km
40.6 mpg US
48.7 mpg UK

The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0d and Skoda Octavia III Combi Facelift 2017 RS 2.0 TSI: 0.8 L/100 km.

Power-to-weight comparison

Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t

Chart data table
VehicleValue
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSI
166 hp/t
124 kW/t
6.0 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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSI
758 km
471 mi
JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d
1,138 km
707 mi

Performance spider chart

Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.

Chart data table
VehiclePowerAccelerationTop speed
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSI
230 hp
172 kW
7.0 s
245 km/h
152 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.

Chart data table
VehiclePerformance scorePracticality score
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSI
Power
230 hp
172 kW
0-100 km/h7.0 s
Top speed
245 km/h
152 mph
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
610 L
21.5 cu ft
Length
4,689 mm
184.6 in
Height
1,452 mm
57.2 in
JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d
Power
240 hp
179 kW
0-100 km/h6.7 s
Top speed
241 km/h
150 mph
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
565 L
20.0 cu ft
Length
4,955 mm
195.1 in
Height
1,496 mm
58.9 in

Performance vs fuel economy

Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.

Performance vs fuel economy data table
VehiclePerformance scoreFuel economy score
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSI
Power
230 hp
172 kW
0-100 km/h7.0 s
Top speed
245 km/h
152 mph
6.6 L/100 km
35.6 mpg US
42.8 mpg UK
JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0d
Power
240 hp
179 kW
0-100 km/h6.7 s
Top speed
241 km/h
150 mph
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.

Acceleration vs fuel consumption data table
VehicleFuel consumption, L/100 km0-100 km/h, s
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSI
6.6 L/100 km
35.6 mpg US
42.8 mpg UK
7.0 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.

Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption data table
VehiclePower-to-weight, hp/tFuel consumption, L/100 km
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSI
166 hp/t
124 kW/t
6.0 kg/hp
6.6 L/100 km
35.6 mpg US
42.8 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

Detailed score breakdown
VehicleSkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSIJaguarXF 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
7.0 s
6.7 s
Top speed
245 km/h
152 mph
241 km/h
150 mph
Lightness
1,387 kg
3,058 lb
1,805 kg
3,979 lb
Fuel consumption
6.6 L/100 km
35.6 mpg US
42.8 mpg UK
5.8 L/100 km
40.6 mpg US
48.7 mpg UK
Practicality
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
610 L
21.5 cu ft
Length
4,689 mm
184.6 in
Height
1,452 mm
57.2 in
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
565 L
20.0 cu ft
Length
4,955 mm
195.1 in
Height
1,496 mm
58.9 in
Range score
758 km
471 mi
1,138 km
707 mi
CO2 score
149 g/km
153 g/km
Trunk score
610 L
21.5 cu ft
565 L
20.0 cu ft
Power-to-weight score
166 hp/t
124 kW/t
6.0 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

Fuel cost and annual usage
VehicleSkoda Octavia III Combi Facelift 2017 RS 2.0 TSIJaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0d
Consumption6.6 L/100 km35.6 mpg US42.8 mpg UK5.8 L/100 km40.6 mpg US48.7 mpg UK
Cost / 100 km11.55 LC100 km10.15 LC100 km
Cost / 100 mi18.59 LC100 mi16.33 LC100 mi
Annual fuel used990 L262 US gal218 UK gal870 L230 US gal191 UK gal
Annual fuel cost1,733 LC/year1,523 LC/year

Head-to-head comparisons

Skoda Octavia III Combi Facelift 2017 RS 2.0 TSI

  • Is 418 kg lighter
  • Has 4 km/h (2 mph) higher top speed
  • Has 33 hp/t better power-to-weight
  • Has 45 L more trunk volume
  • Emits 4 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 0.3 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
  • Uses 0.8 L/100 km less fuel
  • Has 380 km (236 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

Brand
Model
Generation
Engine or modification
Skoda Octavia III Combi RS 2.0 TSI
Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0d
Compare selected cars
2 vehicles selected

Popular comparisons

RS 2.0 TSI
JCW 2.0
VS
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSIvsMiniClubman (F54)JCW 2.0
2.0d
2.0i
VS
JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0dvsJaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)Facelift 20202.0i
RS 2.0 TSI
525d
VS
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSIvsBMW5 Series Touring (G31)525d
2.0d
2.0d
VS
JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0dvsJaguarXF (X260)2.0d
RS 2.0 TSI
2.0 TSI
VS
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSIvsVolkswagenPassat Variant (B8)2.0 TSI
2.0d
2.0i
VS
JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0dvsJaguarXF (X260)Facelift 20202.0i
RS 2.0 TSI
2.0 T5
VS
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSIvsVolvoV902.0 T5
2.0d
5.0 V8
VS
JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0dvsJaguarXF (X250)5.0 V8
RS 2.0 TSI
3.0 TDI
VS
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSIvsAUDIA6 Avant (4G/C7)Facelift 20163.0 TDI
2.0d
R-S 5.0 V8
VS
JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0dvsJaguarXF (X250)Facelift 2011R-S 5.0 V8
RS 2.0 TSI
1.8 TCe
VS
SkodaOctavia III CombiFacelift 2017RS 2.0 TSIvsRenaultTalisman Estate1.8 TCe
2.0d
2.0 BiTDI
VS
JaguarXF Sportbrake (X260)2.0dvsVolkswagenPassat Alltrack (B8)2.0 BiTDI
Skoda Octavia III Combi · Facelift 2017 RS 2.0 TSI vs Jaguar XF Sportbrake (X260) 2.0d - car comparison - FastVsFaster