Compare Hyundai i30 III Hatchback facelift vs Skoda Rapid Spaceback vs Chrysler PT Cruiser

Hyundai i30 III (PD) facelift Hatchback (2020)

Skoda Rapid Spaceback (NH1) Hatchback (2013-2019)

Chrysler PT Cruiser Hatchback (2000-2010)

Hyundai Motor | Cars

Skoda | Cars

Chrysler | Cars

Variants

1.0 T-GDi

1.0 T-GDi DCT

1.5 DPi

1.5 T-GDi

1.5 T-GDi DCT

1.6 CRDi 115

1.6 CRDi 115 DCT

1.6 CRDi 136

1.6 CRDi 136 DCT

i30 N Performance

i30 N Performance DCT

1.0 TSI 110

1.0 TSI 95

1.0 TSI 95 AT

1.2 TSI 105

1.2 TSI 110

1.2 TSI 86

1.2 TSI 90

1.2 TSI 90 DSG

1.4 TDI 90

1.4 TDI 90 AT

1.4 TDI 90 DSG

1.4 TSI 122 DSG

1.4 TSI 125 AT

1.4 TSI 125 DSG

1.4i 90

1.6 TDI 105

1.6 TDI 115

1.6 TDI 116

1.6 TDI 90

1.6 TDI 90 DSG

1.6i 110 Hp

1.6i 110 AT

1.6

2.0 141PS

2.0 141PS AT

2.0 150PS

2.0 150PS AT

2.2D 150PS

2.2D 121PS

2.4

2.4 AT

2.4T 182PS

2.4T 182PS AT

2.4T 220PS

2.4T 220PS AT

Capacity

Coolant Capacity

6.2 L / 6.6 qt

Engine Oil Capacity

4.7 L / 5.0 qt

Fuel Capacity

50.0 L / 13.2 gal

55.0 L / 14.5 gal

57.0 L / 15.1 gal

Passengers

Chassis

Brakes | Front

Disc, 345 mm

Ventilated discs

Brakes | Rear

Disc, 314 mm

Offroad | Approach Angle

13.8 deg

Offroad | Departure Angle

16.5 deg

Power Steering

Electric Steering

Hydraulic Steering

Suspension | Front

MacPherson strut

Suspension | Rear

Multi-link

Semi-independent, Torsion beam

Semi-independent

Tire Size

235/35 R19 Y

Turning Circle

11.7 m / 38.2 ft

10.9 m / 35.8 ft

Construction

Body Style

5-door Hatchback

5-door Station Wagon

Dimensions

Ground Clearance

134 mm / 5.3 in

Size | Length

4340 mm / 170.9 in

Size | Width

1795 mm / 70.7 in

1706 mm / 67.2 in

Wheel Size

8.0J x 19

Wheelbase

2650 mm / 104.3 in

Performance

Braking | 100 km/h - 0

34.6 m / 113.5 ft

Powertrain

Drivetrain Layout

Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive

Engine | Bore

86.0 mm / 3.4 in

Engine | Compression Ratio

9.5:1

Engine | Stroke

86.0 mm / 3.4 in

Reviews

Neofiliac score

32%

Pros

Decent build quality
Decent performance
Good handling

Low official fuel consumption

So ugly that it's an icon

Cons

Only available with small engines
Stuck with MacPherson struts in the front

Bad 0-100kph time
Miserably low engine output
Only available with small, unreliable engines
No independent rear suspensions
Very ugly

Can't even reach 200km/h
No powerful engine options
Not independent rear suspensions
Truly epitomizes ugliness

Price

Offers (incl. referral links)

Remove

Add up to 4 products to the comparison using the search bar above

Information on this page is provided on an as-is basis. No warranty on accuracy is implied. This page may contain affiliate links to third-party merchants such as Amazon and eBay. If you make a purchase using the supplied link, we may receive a commission. Neofiliac places the utmost respect for your privacy. We use no cookie whatsoever beyond that needed for the proper functioning of the website.