2008 Skoda Roomster Comparo - Petrol vs. Diesel
2008 Skoda Roomster Comparo
Petrol vs. Diesel - Round One
Models tested:
- Skoda Roomster 1.6 Petrol (automatic) $29,290 - Tested
- Skoda Roomster 1.9 Turbo Diesel (manual) $28,990 - Tested
Options:
- Metallic Paint $540 (Fitted); Park Distance Control (Rear) $690 (Fitted); Alarm System $530; Roof Rails $330 (Fitted); Panoramic Roof $1690 (Fitted).
- by Matt Brogan
The funky Skoda Roomster is no stranger to the CarAdvice office having been reviewed by Karl some months ago. So rather than review it again, I used the Roomster as a little science project to help solve the most important conundrum of the modern age – petrol versus diesel.
Through your comments and feedback, we’ve found a lot of people were unsure of the pros and cons of each engine type and were often curious as to the difference in the economy and drivability offered between the differing power plants.
With that in mind, I’ve set out to tackle a few makes and models of car (including a Minivan, Small Hatch and Mid Sized Sedan) against each other over the next two months to try and advise buyers which engine best suits their needs.
Perhaps by way of explanation it’s prudent to start with the obvious question of what exactly the power and torque figures mean in relation to an engine’s output and how these figures apply to real world driving when selecting a petrol or diesel fueled car.
To understand the figures, I’ll first try to simplify the often baffling difference between power and torque with a quick explanation of each term.
Power, to us of the metric age, is measured by the unit of kW (kilowatts) and essentially refers to the rate at which torque is produced. In the early days, an engine was measured in relative terms - how much work it could do as compared to a horse - thus the term horsepower (hp) came in to being.
The definition of horsepower is simply this, one unit of horsepower is the force required to elevate 33,000 pounds the distance of one foot in one minute. Translated in to metric terms it becomes a little messy, but in very basic terms more horsepower means more speed.
Torque on the other hand is an often over looked part of the equation, but is nonetheless very important, especially in the case of a diesel engine that more often than not will produce less power than its petrol siblings. Measured in Nm (newton metres) or ft lbs (foot pounds) in the old days, torque is a unit of measure used to describe the turning or twisting force an engine produces.
When the piston (linear motion) is applied in the case of an engine through the crank shaft (rotational motion) the torque or rotational force figure can then be calculated by use of a fulcrum from the centre point of the crank.
Think of it as a lever placed on the engine’s crankshaft measuring the force produced (note that time is not a factor – torque can be constant). In basic terms again, more torque means greater pulling power.
So with the physics lesson over, it’s time to see how all this is relative to selecting an engine, and what it means in real world terms so far as driving one, and indeed what running one will cost you.
My first guinea pig was the petrol variant, in this case the Roomster Style 1.6 litre four-cylinder. The double overhead cam sixteen valve engine revs rather freely and like most petrol engines, develops the majority of its motivation higher in the rev range.
The multi-point injection set up helps develop a rather smooth 77kW which is on board at 5,600 rpm, just shy of the red line. Coupled with a somewhat lack luster torque figure of 153Nm @ 3,800rpm the figures don’t really do a lot to inspire a would-be buyer, at least on paper.
Fortunately for the petrol Roomster the transmission is its saving grace, which is why I chose to review the automatic. In my opinion it does a better job than the manual when mated to this particular petrol engine, and made for a fairer comparison to the TDI model.
The six-speed automatic (with sport mode and tiptronic style shifter – floor mounted) adapts itself to your driving style and very quickly learns how best to react to throttle input selecting the required gear to keep Roomster moving at a respectable pace.
At first drive it seems a little slow, almost frustrating, but after a half-hour or so you very quickly notice the dynamics of the vehicle’s performance have changed - for the better - and that it is now moving with a lot more fluidity.
It’s not fast, it’s not meant to be, but it does get along rather well considering what’s under the bonnet would be more at home in a small hatch than a 1,210kg people minivan.
Around town it’s quite friendly, and although it is a tad slow for my likings, will keep with traffic easily enough. You’ll notice a lot more throttle input is required to maintain pace, especially in stop-start traffic or hilly areas but in all the car moves well enough not to present any issues.
The climate control has little bearing on performance or fuel consumption and does a great job considering the area it needs to cool/heat and the panoramic glass roof. With only two people on board Roomster manages hills rather confidently, but load in a few more people and their kit, and the petrol engine soon becomes a little asthmatic.
Moderate to larger hills, especially at highway speeds, requiring a lot more throttle input to maintain speed, and steep grades knock the stuffing out of it requiring low gears and a lot of revs to keep things moving along. I should imagine towing would also be an issue here though the test vehicle was not fitted with the optional 1,200kg (braked) tow kit.
Given the extra right foot required to keep things moving, the fuel economy soon starts to suffer and with the best intentions of getting the most from our test candidate, I could still only manage 9.9 litres / 100km for my week of combined city and highway driving (1,000km for each car), 2.2 litres above the claimed ADR results.
Moving on to the diesel now, the Roomster Style TDI comes in one guise only, the slightly higher capacity 1.9 litre five-speed manual. The single overhead cam eight valve turbo charged oiler manages 77kW, just like its petrol brother, though the power comes on sooner - 4,000rpm due to the low revving nature of a diesel engine.
The upshot of this is a tidy 240Nm of torque from just 1,800rpm which means minimal turbo lag, and linear, consistent pull in every gear – even fifth!
A little noisier at normal running speeds than the petrol, the diesel manages itself more confidently across a wider range of driving and can keep up to fast paced city traffic with very little effort. The extra torque on hand also means additional weight isn’t an issue and even when fully loaded I found very little need to down shift on all but the most precipitous inclines.
The pace carried is better than the petrol too. Maintaining speed is easier, highway cruising is more manageable, and the manual gearbox is simple, light to use, and is well geared for any situation you could possibly be faced with. Overtaking is easy enough and in most cases can be managed in top gear.
Perhaps most importantly the diesel came out trumps in the fuel consumption race (as you’d no doubt expect) returning 6.0 litres / 100km for the week. Although this was again over the ADR figure (of 5.5 litres / 100km) the difference is far better than that of the petrol, especially when you consider that the PULP fuel required for the petrol model and the diesel fuel for this model are roughly the same price, at least here in Victoria.
For my money, the TDI (diesel) is the pick of the litter. You’d really have a tough time pushing the petrol argument for a small capacity engine in a car of this size, and given the overall usability of the diesel engine – not to mention the economy gains – the choice is clear. Diesel wins this round.
Scoreboard - Diesel 1 : Petrol 0
![]()
Next month’s comparo will feature the Skoda Octavia.

Location: Home / Skoda, Behind the Wheel, Diesel, Car Advice / ...
Rate Post:



(8 votes, average: 4.38 out of 5)










March 26th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Nice comparison, and amazing that the thirstier petrol engine was more expensive than the diesel, normally it’s the other way around.
(Report)
March 26th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Thanks Mitchell. Yeah the petrol was an OK package but the diesel is what really makes the car a worthwhile prospect. Versatile little thing too. Being able to take the seats with you is great at the local footy
(Report)
March 26th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
lol spam toyota on toyota New zealnd website it says a corrola disel is coming maybe its no far behind for us
any way pretty slow news day
and this skoda these pics dont do it justice the in the flesh [metal] it looks great the proprtions look right and the interior is brighter
(Report)
March 26th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Mitchell - check the transmission line in the specification table. The petrol machine was an automatic, the diesel was manual. That explains the price discrepancy.
Cheers
(Report)
March 26th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
hey there… kool review of the 2 engines
btw… mitchell… the petrol is more expensive than the diesel becos the diesel is onli a manual, not an auto
(Report)
March 26th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Pity the thing is so damn ugly
(Report)
March 26th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
—– And the diesel does it again —–
There yah go petrol heads. Amazing to think the 1.6 petrol uses the same amount of fule nearly as the Toyota Aurion.
Toyota must be seriously loosing sales not having diesels in australia, and they are supposed to be number one.
(Report)
March 26th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Good comparison Matt.
If you could manange it the BMW 320 V the 320D would be a good comparison. The diesel is a stormer in this car compared to the petrol.
Also how about a side by side comparsion of the New Falcon, the Commodore, and the Aurion. That will cause a mild ruckuss in the camp!!
actually comparison alround would be great.
(Report)
March 26th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Hey No Name, both are excellent suggestions. The 320d is a great car, shows what a diesel is truly capable of being. Perhaps our new friends at BMW will accommodate us soon.
As for the Aurion, Falcon, Commodore - I’d love it, any excuse for a ruckus (as you may have noticed). Maybe when we get our hands on the FG we’ll hit the others up for a loaner and see what we can do.
(Report)
March 26th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Cheers Matt - Look forward to it.
(Report)
March 26th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
No Name, Your such a stirrer….Matt Please take your time with that comparison and try and make it a three way tie coz other wise regardless of the winner this blog will go into meltdown!!!LOL
(Report)
March 26th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Nah Carl, I’m genuinely interested, whilst we don’t have any of the so called big cars here it will be interesting to watch the banter.
Also have you noticed how the CA folks are targeting popular topics! Hybrid comparison, Diesel comparison…
(Report)
March 26th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Yeh can’t wait for the diesel hybrids to come out to see how they compare to the Prius….and then you’ll see some real fire works with our Toyota buddies!!!
(Report)
March 27th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Ah that’s a good point Paul, how much is the auto diesel?
(Report)
March 27th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Hey Mitchell, the Roomster is not available in Auto diesel. Petrol gets both gearboxes, diesel manual only.
(Report)
March 27th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Great idea for this review Matt. Will help alot of people still scared of committing to diesels.
As a diesel owner I have to admit however your review was a little unfair. Generally the diesel option in most makes is a smaller capacity engine at a premium price against a petrol equivalent (both being manual or auto).
Can I suggest a SUV (biggest moving segment of the car industry) and the Santa Fe (yes I have one) for one of your tests as the comparison would be more realistic for most makes. The 3.3 petrol V the 2.2 diesel (disregard the 3.7 as it is only 2wd) or perhaps a Captiva or Sorrento.
I’ll still bet my house on the diesel!
(Report)
March 27th, 2008 at 11:03 am
You could say this comparison was a bit of a no brainer.. diesel wins hands down everytime in load bearing and fuel economy. no suprises here
(Report)
March 27th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
SteveV - thanks and yes I agree with your point, but these vehicles were available and the point seemed a timely one. Next month’s (and the following)comparo will prove your point re smaller capacity/premium price - we’ll see which comes out trumps. Will work on the SUV thing for you, I may have a pair Sportages in the wings.
BMWsauberF1 - as a car buff, it’s a no brainer, but this sites caters for any one interested in cars and potential buyers, not just enthusiasts like you and me, hence the detailed explanations in the article that may seem ‘common knowledge’ to the majority.
(Report)
March 27th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
The other part of cost of ownership is service and maintainence. When comparing the two does one require more service intervals, more parts replacement etc.
This could be a big factor espically for those who don’t do massive km’s. (i.e save a little on running costs and then lose it all at service time)
Also I know this is a new car to the Aust market but what about resale value for the two types??
(Report)
March 27th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
i can tell you it costs no more to own a volkswagen or skoda in service costs. they have the same 15,000 klm intervals and service cost is the same.
(Report)
March 27th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Simon - the servicing is something we’ll look in to for you. As to depreciation, it may be a case of “too early to tell”, though historically speaking, obscure brands do not fare well.
(Report)
March 27th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
email me matt as i work for a vw skoda dealer, i can help with costings and other stuff
(Report)
March 27th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Diesel will always kick petrol engines asses in. Every semi trailor runs on diesel so why not make every car a diesel to. Hope the ford falcon be a diesel one day. Imagine a Barra 4 litre on diesel pumpin out 750 nm of torque. Maybe the next GTHO will be a diesel pumpin out 1000+ nm of torque and reclaim the worlds fastest production car again.
(Report)
March 27th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Steve V - Thats not a good comparison mate. petrol 3.3 V6 versus a 2.2 4cyl diesel. No brainer the petrol has the go but the diesel has the econmomy. Its a pointless excercise as we all no the answers now.
(Report)
March 28th, 2008 at 8:06 am
No Name,
you obviously haven’t driven the 3.3! I’d suggest the diesel wouldn’t give up too much ground to the petrol in acceleration and would certainly kick ass with a few bodies on board or steep accent.
(Report)
March 28th, 2008 at 8:07 am
It is the OVERALL comparison that would count, not just one factor.
(Report)
March 28th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Neither
Get the proper genuine VW one!
And yeah, diesel powered is better becuase the ULP engine fitted is a pox, needs a 2l or V6
Cheers
F-0
(Report)
March 31st, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Hi Folks on me diesel crusade again. Just watched the first round of 2008 British Touring Cars. Seat running diesels aagianst the rest of the petrol fired pack. They came 3rd and 4th. Apparently they have been pretty sucessful in the world series.
Just to win an arguement for TP the Vauxhall Vectra waahhey BM!!) FWD beat the RWD BMW 3 Series cos it couldn’t stop sliding sideways on the corners!!
(Report)