Compare Volkswagen Up vs SEAT Ibiza 5 vs Alfa Romeo MiTo facelift

Volkswagen Up / Skoda Citigo / SEAT Mii Hatchback (2011-2016)

Alfa Romeo MiTo (955) facelift Hatchback (2013-2016)

Volkswagen | Cars

SEAT | Cars

Alfa Romeo | Cars

Variants

1.0 60

1.0 60 AT

1.0 75

1.0 75 AT

1.0 CNG

1.0 TSI 115

1.0 TSI 115 Euro6d

1.0 TSI 115 DSG

1.0 TSI 115 Euro6d DSG

1.0 TSI 95

1.0 65

1.0 75

1.0 80

1.0 80 Euro6d

1.0 TGI 90 CNG

1.5 TSI 150 DSG

1.5 TSI 150

1.6 110

1.6 110 AT

1.6 90

1.6 TDI 80

1.6 TDI 95

1.6 TDI 95 Euro6d

1.6 TDI 95 DSG

0.9 TwinAir 105

1.3 JTD 85

1.4 70

1.4 78

1.4 TB MultiAir 140 TCT

1.4 TB MultiAir 170 TCT

Capacity

Cargo Capacity

251 L / 8.9 cu-ft ~ 951 L / 33.6 cu-ft

270 L / 9.5 cu-ft

Engine Oil Capacity

3.4 L / 3.6 qt

Fuel Capacity

35.0 L / 9.2 gal

45.0 L / 11.9 gal

Passengers

Chassis

Brakes | Front

Ventilated discs

Brakes | Rear

Disc

Power Steering

Electric Steering

Suspension | Front

MacPherson strut

Suspension | Rear

Semi-independent, Torsion beam

Semi-independent, coil spring

Turning Circle

9.8 m / 32.1 ft

Construction

Body Style

3-5-door Hatchback

5-door Hatchback

3-door Hatchback

Dimensions

Size | Height

1489 mm / 58.6 in

1444 mm / 56.9 in

1446 mm / 56.9 in

Size | Length

3540 mm / 139.4 in

4059 mm / 159.8 in

4063 mm / 160.0 in

Size | Width

1645 mm / 64.8 in

1780 mm / 70.1 in | 1942 mm / 76.5 in (mirror unfolded)

1720 mm / 67.7 in

Track Width | Front

1428.0 mm / 56.2 in

1525.0 mm / 60.0 in

1483.0 mm / 58.4 in

Track Width | Rear

1424.0 mm / 56.1 in

1505.0 mm / 59.3 in

1475.0 mm / 58.1 in

Wheelbase

2420 mm / 95.3 in

2564 mm / 100.9 in

2511 mm / 98.9 in

Powertrain

Drivetrain Layout

Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive

Emission Standard

Euro 5

Engine | Displacement

1.0 L / 61.0 cu-in / 999.0 cc

Engine | Type

Naturally-aspirated multi-port injected petrol inline-3 engine with 4 values per cylinder

Transmission | Gears

5-speed

Production

Availability

2013 ~ 2018

Reviews

Neofiliac score

11%

17%

23%

Pros

Fuel efficient
Easy to drive and park
Small turning circle

Low official fuel consumption
More coherent design than Mk4

Low official fuel consumption

Cons

Horrible 0-100kph time
Can't even reach 200km/h
Miserably low engine output
Only available with tiny engines
No independent rear suspensions

No powerful engine options
Only available with small, unreliable engines
No independent rear suspensions

No powerful engine options
Tiny engines
No independent rear suspensions
Low cargo capacity
More emission control systems to fail

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.