In the competitive compact SUV segment, the BMW X1 stands out with its sleek design and sporty handling, appealing to those who seek a premium driving experience. On the other hand, the Skoda Karoq impresses with its practicality and spacious interior, making it an excellent choice for families. While the X1 offers a more luxurious vibe, the Karoq provides exceptional value, showcasing the distinct priorities of buyers in this segment.
The automotive landscape is teeming with choices for compact SUVs, where features such as performance, design, and technology significantly influence buyers' decisions. Two of the notable contenders in this segment are the BMW X1 and the Skoda Karoq. With distinctive qualities and a range of options, buyers may find themselves pondering which of these vehicles suits their needs best.
The BMW X1 is characterized by its robust, athletic design, measuring 4500mm in length and 1845mm in width. It stands tall at 1642mm. The X1’s bold kidney grille, sleek headlights, and sculpted lines underscore its luxury SUV status.
In contrast, the Skoda Karoq features a more understated aesthetic, measuring slightly smaller at 4390mm long and 1841mm wide. Its height varies between 1603mm to 1624mm depending on the variant. The Karoq embodies Skoda's clean design philosophy with a practical and functional exterior.
Under the hood, the BMW X1 offers a diverse range of engines, including petrol, diesel, and hybrid options. Power outputs range from 136 to a potent 326 HP, with diesel MHEV and petrol MHEV configurations available. The engines are paired with an automatic transmission, enabling smooth gear shifts and responsive performance. The X1 boasts impressive acceleration figures, with the fastest variant sprinting from 0 to 100 km/h in just 5.4 seconds.
The Skoda Karoq, on the other hand, offers a more modest selection of engine options, with petrol and diesel engines generating between 115 and 190 HP. The Karoq’s acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h can reach as low as 7 seconds with its performance-oriented variants, although the overall output is fewer than that of the X1's aggressive engine range.
When it comes to fuel consumption, the BMW X1 showcases impressive figures, with some variants consuming as little as 4.6 L/100 km. Its hybrid configurations also offer an electric range of up to 83 km, providing a cost-effective and eco-friendly driving experience.
The Skoda Karoq similarly strives for efficiency, with its best-performing engines delivering figures around 4.9 L/100 km. However, its emissions tend to range from 129 to 174 g/km, slightly higher than some X1 variants, which can dip as low as 120 g/km.
Stepping inside, the BMW X1 showcases a luxurious interior with high-quality materials and an intuitive infotainment system. With five seats and a trunk capacity of up to 540 liters, it strikes a balance between comfort and practicality.
The Skoda Karoq does not shy away from comfort either, offering spacious seating for five and a trunk space of 521 liters, slightly less than the X1. Skoda is known for its attention to practicality, and the Karoq features numerous storage solutions and an easy-to-use infotainment system, making it a suitable choice for families.
Both vehicles are equipped with comprehensive safety features, including advanced driver assistance systems. The BMW X1 benefits from a suite of features such as lane-keeping assist and adaptive cruise control, amplifying its driving experience. Meanwhile, the Skoda Karoq offers similar technological advancements with a focus on safety and eco-friendliness, such as emergency braking and blind-spot monitoring.
Choosing between the BMW X1 and the Skoda Karoq ultimately boils down to personal preference and priorities. The X1 dazzles with its robust performance and luxurious stature, while the Karoq stands tall with practicality, efficiency, and value. For those who cling to sportiness and premium features, the X1 might be the right bet. Conversely, buyers seeking reliability and functionality may find the Karoq a better fit. Each vehicle brings unique strengths to the table, ensuring that either choice will provide a rewarding driving experience.
|
|
|
|
Costs and Consumption |
|
---|---|
Price
about 37600 - 54800
£
|
Price
about 28400 - 41000
£
|
Consumption L/100km
0.8 - 7.7
L
|
Consumption L/100km
4.9 - 7.6
L
|
Consumption kWh/100km
-
|
Consumption kWh/100km
-
|
Electric Range
83
km
|
Electric Range
-
|
Battery Capacity
14.2
kWh
|
Battery Capacity
-
|
co2
17 - 175
g/km
|
co2
129 - 174
g/km
|
Fuel tank capacity
47 - 54
L
|
Fuel tank capacity
50 - 55
L
|
Dimensions and Body |
|
Body Type
SUV
|
Body Type
SUV
|
Seats
5
|
Seats
5
|
Doors
5
|
Doors
5
|
Curb weight
1575 - 1935
kg
|
Curb weight
1364 - 1608
kg
|
Trunk capacity
490 - 540
L
|
Trunk capacity
521
L
|
Length
4500 - 4505
mm
|
Length
4384 - 4390
mm
|
Width
1845
mm
|
Width
1841
mm
|
Height
1622 - 1642
mm
|
Height
1603 - 1624
mm
|
Payload
490 - 500
kg
|
Payload
426 - 573
kg
|
Engine and Performance |
|
Engine Type
Diesel, Petrol, Diesel MHEV, Petrol MHEV, Plugin Hybrid
|
Engine Type
Petrol, Diesel
|
Transmission
Automatic
|
Transmission
Manuel, Automatic
|
Transmission Detail
Dual-Clutch Automatic, Automat. Schaltgetriebe (Doppelkupplung)
|
Transmission Detail
Manual Gearbox, Dual-Clutch Automatic
|
Drive Type
Front-Wheel Drive, All-Wheel Drive
|
Drive Type
Front-Wheel Drive, All-Wheel Drive
|
Power HP
136 - 326
HP
|
Power HP
115 - 190
HP
|
Acceleration 0-100km/h
5.4 - 9.2
s
|
Acceleration 0-100km/h
7 - 10.6
s
|
Max Speed
190 - 250
km/h
|
Max Speed
193 - 221
km/h
|
Torque
230 - 477
Nm
|
Torque
200 - 360
Nm
|
Number of Cylinders
3 - 4
|
Number of Cylinders
3 - 4
|
Power kW
100 - 240
kW
|
Power kW
85 - 140
kW
|
Engine capacity
1499 - 1998
cm3
|
Engine capacity
999 - 1984
cm3
|
Top speed
190 - 250
km/h
|
Top speed
193 - 221
km/h
|
General |
|
Model Year
2023 - 2024
|
Model Year
2024
|
CO2 Efficiency Class
D, E, B, F
|
CO2 Efficiency Class
D, E, F
|
Brand
BMW
|
Brand
Skoda
|
The prices and data displayed are estimates based on German list prices and may vary by country. This information is not legally binding.