Skoda Octavia III
Car comparison
Skoda Octavia III RS 2.0 TSIvsMini Paceman (R61) JCW 1.6
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonMini Paceman (R61)
JCW 1.6
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Skoda Octavia III RS 2.0 TSI
- Quickest 0-100 km/h6.8 s
- Fastest top speed248 km/h154 mph
- Most powerful220 hp164 kW
- Highest torque350 Nm258 lb-ft
- Lightest1,345 kg2,965 lb
- Best power-to-weight164 hp/t122 kW/t6.1 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption6.2 L/100 km37.9 mpg US45.6 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption7.7 L/100 km30.5 mpg US36.7 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption5.3 L/100 km44.4 mpg US53.3 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions142 g/km
- Best estimated range806 km501 mi
- Largest trunk590 L
- Best overall score65/100
- Best performance score57/100
- Best economy score90/100
- Best practicality score82/100
Specification comparison
| Model | SkodaOctavia IIIRS 2.0 TSI | MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 220hp164kW | 218hp163kW |
| Torque | 350Nm258lb-ft | 300Nm221lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,345kg2,965lb | 1,420kg3,131lb |
| Gross weight | 1,887kg4,160lb | 1,890kg4,167lb |
| Top speed | 248 km/h 154 mph | 226 km/h 140 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 80.6s99% target: 246 km/h / 153 mph Calculated | 78.8s99% target: 224 km/h / 139 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 6.8s | 6.8s |
| 0-200 km/h | 25.1s Calculated | 32.1s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 6.5s Calculated | 6.4s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 6.2L/100 km37.9mpg US45.6mpg UK | 7.5L/100 km31.4mpg US37.7mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 7.7L/100 km30.5mpg US36.7mpg UK | 10.4L/100 km22.6mpg US27.2mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 5.3L/100 km44.4mpg US53.3mpg UK | 5.9L/100 km39.9mpg US47.9mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 14.8s Calculated | 14.9s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 164hp/t122kW/t74hp/1000 lb Calculated | 154hp/t114kW/t70hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 260Nm/t174lb-ft/ton Calculated | 211Nm/t141lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 806km501mi Calculated | 627km389mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,984cc121cu in | 1,598cc98cu in |
| Length | 4,685mm184in | 4,124mm162in |
| Width | 1,814mm71in | 1,786mm70in |
| Height | 1,449mm57in | 1,518mm60in |
| Wheelbase | 2,680mm106in | 2,596mm102in |
| Front track | 1,535mm60in | 1,527mm60in |
| Rear track | 1,506mm59in | 1,554mm61in |
| Ground clearance | 128mm5in | 128mm5in |
| Trunk volume | 590L | 330L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,580L | 1,080L |
| Doors | 5 | 3 |
| Seats | 5 | 4 |
| Fuel tank | 50L | 47L |
| CO2 emissions | 142g/km | 175g/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 RS 2.0 TSI: Power / Torque
- Mini Paceman (R61) JCW 1.6: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia IIIRS 2.0 TSI | 4,500-6,200 rpm | 1,500-4,400 rpm | 6,450 rpm |
| MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 | 6,000 rpm | 2,100-4,500 rpm | 6,250 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | SkodaOctavia IIIRS 2.0 TSI | MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 6.8 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 25.1 s | 32.1 s |
| Top speed | 248 km/h 154 mph | 226 km/h 140 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.5 s | 2.4 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.5 s | 6.4 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.7 s | 9.7 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.5 s | 12.5 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 14.8 s | 14.9 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 159 km/h 99 mph | 153 km/h 95 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia IIIRS 2.0 TSI | 220 hp 164 kW |
| MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 | 218 hp 163 kW |
Skoda Octavia III RS 2.0 TSI has 2 hp more than Mini Paceman (R61) JCW 1.6.
The biggest power difference is between Mini Paceman (R61) JCW 1.6 and Skoda Octavia III RS 2.0 TSI: 2 hp (1 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia IIIRS 2.0 TSI | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft |
| MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 | 300 Nm 221 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia IIIRS 2.0 TSI | 1,345 kg 2,965 lb |
| MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 | 1,420 kg 3,131 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia IIIRS 2.0 TSI | 248 km/h 154 mph |
| MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 | 226 km/h 140 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia IIIRS 2.0 TSI | 6.8 s |
| MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 | 6.8 s |
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia IIIRS 2.0 TSI | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK |
| MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 | 7.5 L/100 km 31.4 mpg US 37.7 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Skoda Octavia III RS 2.0 TSI and Mini Paceman (R61) JCW 1.6: 1.3 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia IIIRS 2.0 TSI | 164 hp/t 122 kW/t 6.1 kg/hp |
| MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 | 154 hp/t 114 kW/t 6.5 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia IIIRS 2.0 TSI | 806 km 501 mi |
| MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 | 627 km 389 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| SkodaOctavia IIIRS 2.0 TSI | 220 hp 164 kW | 6.8 s | 248 km/h 154 mph |
| MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 | 218 hp 163 kW | 6.8 s | 226 km/h 140 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 IIIRS 2.0 TSI |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
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 IIIRS 2.0 TSI |
| 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | ||||||
| MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 |
| 7.5 L/100 km 31.4 mpg US 37.7 mpg UK | ||||||
Skoda Octavia III 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 IIIRS 2.0 TSI | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | 6.8 s |
| MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 | 7.5 L/100 km 31.4 mpg US 37.7 mpg UK | 6.8 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 IIIRS 2.0 TSI | 164 hp/t 122 kW/t 6.1 kg/hp | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK |
| MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 | 154 hp/t 114 kW/t 6.5 kg/hp | 7.5 L/100 km 31.4 mpg US 37.7 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | SkodaOctavia IIIRS 2.0 TSI | MiniPaceman (R61)JCW 1.6 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 220 hp 164 kW | 218 hp 163 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft | 300 Nm 221 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 6.8 s | 6.8 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 248 km/h 154 mph | 226 km/h 140 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,345 kg 2,965 lb | 1,420 kg 3,131 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | 7.5 L/100 km 31.4 mpg US 37.7 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 806 km 501 mi | 627 km 389 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 142 g/km | 175 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 590 L 20.8 cu ft | 330 L 11.7 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 164 hp/t 122 kW/t 6.1 kg/hp | 154 hp/t 114 kW/t 6.5 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 RS 2.0 TSI | Mini Paceman (R61) JCW 1.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 6.2 L/100 km37.9 mpg US45.6 mpg UK | 7.5 L/100 km31.4 mpg US37.7 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 10.85 LC100 km | 13.13 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 17.46 LC100 mi | 21.12 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 930 L246 US gal205 UK gal | 1,125 L297 US gal247 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,628 LC/year | 1,969 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Skoda Octavia III RS 2.0 TSI
- Has 2 hp more
- Has 50 Nm more
- Is 75 kg lighter
- Has 22 km/h (14 mph) higher top speed
- Uses 1.3 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 10 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 180 km (112 mi) more estimated range
- Has 260 L more trunk volume
- Emits 33 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Best estimated range
- Largest trunk
Mini Paceman (R61) JCW 1.6
No measurable advantages in the available data.
Cons
- Lowest power
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
- Highest CO2 emissions
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























