Karoq Specs

[SurreyJohn]

Key Points announced 28th April  (tabulated the press release for easy reading)

 

ŠKODA KAROQ

Mladá Boleslav, 28 April 2017

4,382 mm in length, is 1,841 mm wide, and 1,605 mm high.

Wheelbase of 2,638 millimetres (all-wheel version: 2,630 mm

Luggage capacity 521 litres seats in place. Rear seats folded 1,630 litres.

Optional VarioFlex rear seat, Seats can also be completely removed 1,810 litres.

Infotainment with capacitive touch displays.

Columbus (optional LTE) and Amundsen have a WLAN hotspot.

SmartLink+ platform, compatible with Apple CarPlay, Android Auto and MirrorLinkTM, option on basic Swing.

SmartLink+ comes as standard with higher infotainment systems.

Phone box with inductive charging couples the smartphone to the roof antenna and simultaneously charges it wirelessly. 

Driver assistance / comfort systems include the parking assistant, Lane Assist and traffic-jam assistant.  Blind Spot Detect, Front Assist with predictive pedestrian protection and Emergency Assistant.

Optional assistance systems : safe distance from the car ahead, lane assist, traffic signs, and parking assist.

The freely programmable digital instrument panel is available for the first time in a ŠKODA. In the ŠKODA KAROQ, the cockpit displays can be set to the driver’s individual wishes.

Full LED headlights with clear-lens optics are available as an option for the Ambition equipment line and higher.

New LED ambient lighting in the decor strips of doors and the dashboard creates a pleasant atmosphere, which can be set in ten colours. 

Five engine variants –

Two petrol engines and two diesels are new in the line-up. The displacement ranges are 1.0, 1.5, 1.6 and 2.0 litres; the power range is from 85 kW (115 hp) to 140 kW (190 hp).

 

All drivetrains are turbo-charged direct injection units and feature start-stop technology and brake energy recovery.

6-speed manual gearbox or 7-speed DSG except top diesel

 

The 2.0 TDI with 140 kW (190 hp) comes as standard with 4×4 drive and 7-speed DSG.

 

1.5 TSI has the special feature of cylinder deactivation. 

Ambition and higher, a driving profile selection with the modes Normal, Sport, Eco, Individual and Snow (4x4) is available on request.

Off-road mode with all-wheel-drive improves the driving characteristics on rough terrain. 

The new compact SUV celebrates its world premiere on 18 May in Stockholm

 

Market launch is set for the second half of 2017. 

 

 

Obviously some of the new features are already in the Kodiaq and Superb, so can probably get an idea from their brochures in meantime.

The 1.5 petrol engine details can be found on some VW cars

 

Edited 28 April, 2017 by SurreyJohn

[SurreyJohn]

• 1.0 TSI –115 PS, top speed of 116mph, 0-62mph in 10.6 seconds, 53.3mpg, 123g/km of CO2*
• 1.5 TSI –150 PS, top speed of 127mph, 0-62mph in 8.4 seconds, 55.4mpg, 119g/km of CO2*
• 1.6 TDI – 115 PS, top speed of 117mph, 0-62mph in 10.7 seconds, 62.8mpg, 118g/km of CO2*
• 2.0 TDI –150 PS, top speed of 129mph, 0-62mph in 8.9 seconds, 62.4mpg, 115g/km of CO2*
• 2.0 TDI – 190 PS, top speed of 131mph, 0-62mph in 7.8 seconds, 53.3mpg, 138g/km of CO2

all CO2 figures (except 190ps) are for 2wd manual

 

Looking at these, I do wonder why some commentators think the 2.0 TDI 150 will be best seller, in my view unless someone does high mileages I would go for 1.5  petrol.  Yes it uses 12% more fuel (in an unrealistic test) but that difference isn't going to offset a likely £1000+ Price premium for the diesel.  Euro6 diesels don't really like lots of short run town driving as it clogs DPF filters so not suitable for everyday use on school runs.

 

 

[Rooted]

Are these diesel engines not going to be SCR (Ad-blue)?

The UK governments report on Pollution reduction which they have to release before the General Election as the Judge ruled or maybe later if the Government win an appeal might very well have SKODA UK having to consider which Models / Engines they import.

[bigjohn]

On 4/29/2017 at 07:58, Awayoffski said:

Are these diesel engines not going to be SCR (Ad-blue)?

The UK governments report on Pollution reduction which they have to release before the General Election as the Judge ruled or maybe later if the Government win an appeal might very well have SKODA UK having to consider which Models / Engines they import.

 

Probably because of Euro 6 "C"

• More and more diesel engines will have SCR to achieve this
• On other VAG cars the 1.5tsi is being fitted with a GPF (Gasoling Particulate Filter) - presumably the Karoq will also get this?

 

 

[lfc958]

These MPG figures are manufacture quoted and they are as reliable as VW's emmisions.

 

I really do not understand WHY motor manufacturers can continue to blatantly lie about these and get away with it, everyone knows theses are not done in the real world.

 

I would place a bet that real world on the 150 TSI will be not much better than my Yeti which is returning at best 38 mpg, so 55.4 is completely unrealistic.

 

Shame really.

 

 

[Wardy]

55 minutes ago, lfc958 said:

I would place a bet that real world on the 150 TSI will be not much better than my Yeti which is returning at best 38 mpg, so 55.4 is completely unrealistic.

 

Shame really.

 

I'd look on Fuelly or similar for 'real-world' on the 1.4TSI in the Yeti, to give you the closest indication. I might expect the new 1.5TSI to be slightly more economical, but reckon it'll be in the region of 5%.

[Rooted]

Many models will be released before September 2017 while current EU Test Results / Fiction are acceptable for 'Combined Consumption'.

 

Surely the 1.5TSI in a model that does not have the aeordynamics of a shed will use a bit less fuel as long as it is not heavier.

 

Maybe this will be near to the real world figures. (some peoples real world.)

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/seat-ateca-2016/14-tsi 

*Sorry no idea what is wrong with link.*

 

 

PS

A 1.4TSI 150ps Seat Alhambra manual which is much heavier than a Yeti can get 10 miles to a litre so odd that a Yeti can not, 

or maybe can but that comes down to location location location and driving styles.

Then load carried.

Edited 16 May, 2017 by Awayoffski

[paddy wagon]

I don't look at the fuel consumption as a guide to what I will get. Never have.

 

Rather, it's more useful as, and was initially designed to be, a tool for comparison between vehicles.

[lfc958]

4 hours ago, Wardy said:

 

I'd look on Fuelly or similar for 'real-world' on the 1.4TSI in the Yeti, to give you the closest indication. I might expect the new 1.5TSI to be slightly more economical, but reckon it'll be in the region of 5%.

 

True - but not 55.4 mpg

[Rooted]

Where does the 55.4 mpg figure come from?

http://skoda.co.uk/pages/fuel-consumption-statement.aspx

 

Does anyone drive the lightest model with tyres pumped up in a temperature controlled building on a rolling road other than manufacturers to find MPG & Co2 figures.  Well the US Authorities did and VW were caught pretty September 2015.

Then again months later with Euro 6 Implausible Co2 figures fron VW, Seat & Audi models.

[Guest FurryFriend]

2 things I never bother looking at are the 0 to 60 figures, and the top speeds. 

Speed limit in the UK is 70mph, and if you want to burn me off at the lights, be my guest, I really don't care. 

I would reckon the vast majority of UK cars never leave these shores, so I look for economical engines these days. 

[Dr Zoidberg]

3 minutes ago, FurryFriend said:

2 things I never bother looking at are the 0 to 60 figures, and the top speeds. 

Speed limit in the UK is 70mph, and if you want to burn me off at the lights, be my guest, I really don't care. 

I would reckon the vast majority of UK cars never leave these shores, so I look for economical engines these days. 

 

Top speeds don't concern me, but 0-60 does.

I may not use all the performance, but doing 0-60 in 11 seconds is much more relaxing in a car that could have done it in 8, than one that had to be pushed very hard to achieve it. The real world economy figures wouldn't be all that different.

[LemIsBack]

Quoted Co2 outputs are less than those on the Ateca. I was about to plump for a Yeti a few years back when my company suddenly dropped the max Co2 by some margin, squeezing me out of owning one.

New Karoq has piqued my interest for a return to the Skoda fold. Varioflex seats are a boon for me having only one child and often stuffing the car for trips away.

 

Edited 19 May, 2017 by LemIsBack

[CFB]

I got the impression that the Karoq would be smaller than the Yeti, whereas the external dimensions are greater.

Confused?

So it's going to replace the Yeti, or?

[Wardy]

Nope, it was always going to be bigger.

 

There is a rumoured Fabia-sized SUV, but I expect this to be a Juke competitor. So will be smaller than the Yeti.

[SurreyJohn]

On ‎27‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 10:35, CFB said:

I got the impression that the Karoq would be smaller than the Yeti, whereas the external dimensions are greater.

Confused?

So it's going to replace the Yeti, or?

 

The Karoq is bigger externally, however it is less boxy in shape, therefore less usable room inside as it curves in.

Not everyone wants a bigger vehicle that is harder to park

 

It is the official replacement for the yeti, but clearly wont appeal to some current yeti owners as it loses some of its unique features.

 

There is also the question of price and technology.  When the Yeti arrived Skoda had a reputation for solid well built, good value, no frills cars.   It has dropped that loyal part of its customer base that doesn't want Audi like features that jack up the price.  If Dacia were to introduce auto gearboxes, would take another chunk of old Skoda customers as some customers just want reliable transport, not thousands of pounds worth of gizmos they don't understand or use.

 

 

[lfc958]

OK

Tag this 

Driver assistance / comfort systems include the parking assistant, Lane Assist and traffic-jam assistant.  Blind Spot Detect, Front Assist with predictive pedestrian protection and Emergency Assistant. 

Optional assistance systems : safe distance from the car ahead, lane assist, traffic signs, and parking assist.

With Adaptive Cruise, and you have a virtual self drive car.  Where has the driving pleasure gone ?.

 

Having not driven the Yeti for nearly 2 weeks, and used the MX5, it has really brought home how lazy modern cars make drivers and with this load of tech added will not discourage people from using their phones at the wheel.  :(

 

[countryboy]

On 6/1/2017 at 13:07, SurreyJohn said:

 

The Karoq is bigger externally, however it is less boxy in shape, therefore less usable room inside as it curves in.

Not everyone wants a bigger vehicle that is harder to park

 

It is the official replacement for the yeti, but clearly wont appeal to some current yeti owners as it loses some of its unique features.

 

There is also the question of price and technology.  When the Yeti arrived Skoda had a reputation for solid well built, good value, no frills cars.   It has dropped that loyal part of its customer base that doesn't want Audi like features that jack up the price.  If Dacia were to introduce auto gearboxes, would take another chunk of old Skoda customers as some customers just want reliable transport, not thousands of pounds worth of gizmos they don't understand or use.

 

 

You can now get a Dacia Duster with an automatic gearbox.

[SC03OTT]

On 5/16/2017 at 17:15, lfc958 said:

These MPG figures are manufacture quoted and they are as reliable as VW's emmisions.

 

I really do not understand WHY motor manufacturers can continue to blatantly lie about these and get away with it, everyone knows theses are not done in the real world.

 

I would place a bet that real world on the 150 TSI will be not much better than my Yeti which is returning at best 38 mpg, so 55.4 is completely unrealistic.

 

Shame really.

 

 

 

As below really.  Having all cars tested using the same baseline conditions allows you to compare one against another easily.  I hear a lot of people calling for real world testing.  But what is real world?  No two people will have the same driving conditions so it can't be used.  It can't be replicated over and over again.

 

So yeah.  Use the figures as a comparison tool and they are worth something.

 

On 5/16/2017 at 19:17, paddy wagon said:

I don't look at the fuel consumption as a guide to what I will get. Never have.

 

Rather, it's more useful as, and was initially designed to be, a tool for comparison between vehicles.

 

[Rooted]

As it is the new tests start in September 2017 and VW Group have made sure they have their latest Models EU Type Approved and the Engines EU Tested pre September. 

http://autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/92925/real-world-car-mpg-and-emissions-figures-the-new-2017-tests-explained 

So comparisons and the grey areas and Implausible / Irregular Co2 g/km stuff that VW, AUDI, Seat were having even with Euro 6 vehicles should be done with.

http://skoda.co.uk/pages/fuel-consumption-statement.aspx 

Edited 15 June, 2017 by Awayoffski

[lfc958]

 

3 hours ago, SC03OTT said:

 

As below really.  Having all cars tested using the same baseline conditions allows you to compare one against another easily.  I hear a lot of people calling for real world testing.  But what is real world?  No two people will have the same driving conditions so it can't be used.  It can't be replicated over and over again.

 

So yeah.  Use the figures as a comparison tool and they are worth something.

 

 

 

OK so you find them useful. 

These revised test wont be with seats taken out, all toys disconnected and whatever else the manufacturers can do to lighten the load.

 

A lot of people use these figures to decide on their purchase, and I personally have found these to be worthless, and i can give an example.

 

I had a 3 year old Fabia VRS with a quoted MPG using the official mpg figure of 48 MPG, and was looking for a more economical replacement due to additional work miles, the Fiat 500 Diesel was released quoted at 72 MPG. So if my maths is correct thats approx 33% improvement. 

Now being a realist I expected 55 - 60 on the drive i was doing.

What I eventually got based on Tank to Tank fills was - Fabia VRS (remapped to 180 BHP) 52 mpg, the Fiat 500 ( 75BHP ) 51mpg, same route same driving style. After some research and doing 3 tank to tank refills, driving like miss daisy and as recommended by manufacturers best i got was 60MPG, no where near quoted. So that blew that theory of a comparison out the window, even though the fiat was a NEW up to date diesel engine where the Fabia was an old heavy lump.

 

 

[Rooted]

^^^ 

That was driver error, 

if you had kept them both in a temperature controlled building, weighed just 60kg, put diesel in the engine oil, over inflated the tyres and tested them on rolling roads, the Fiat in Italy and the Skoda in the Czech Republic or Slovakia you might have achieved the published figures.

[SC03OTT]

I was merely explaining why they can be used as a comparison tool.  But your example does throw a spanner in the works.  I also pay no attention to claims.  I just buy the car and engine that I like that also fits my budget.  Saves worrying and fooling myself that buying a new car is, in some way, going to save me money.  Because it won't and never will.

[BoxerBoy]

Engines have certainly moved on.

 

I just returned from a holiday, where I picked up a random hire car. Ford Focus. Had to lift the bonnet to see what was I there as it was pretty nippy, if lacking some grunt. A 1 litre 3 cylinder for crying out loud.

 

Very impressive. Sounded fantastic with a strange growl. As a bike rider I appreciated that.

 

Over 400+ miles it managed 45-50 mpg easily and I wasn't pussy-footing around. The lack of grunt meant that I spent a lot of time in 2nd and 3rd gear.

 

The experience has certainly convinced me to consider a smaller engine in any future purchase.

[vrskeith]

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/skoda/karoq/99512/hot-skoda-karoq-vrs-suv-to-get-electric-boost