Skoda Kodiaq 1.4 TSI
Suv · Gasoline
vs
Mazda CX-80
Suv · Gasoline
Skoda Kodiaq 1.4 TSI
Car A
Skoda Kodiaq 1.4 TSI
With seven seats, an 835 L boot, and 6.4 L/100 km combined consumption, the Skoda Kodiaq 1.4 TSI is a practical, efficient choice for large families and road trips. It prioritizes space and sensible running costs over premium flash or outright performance.
7 seatsSuvGasoline5-star safety6.4 L/100km
Mazda CX-80
Car B
Mazda CX-80
The Mazda CX-80 targets large families with seven seats, everyday practicality, and running costs that are efficient for its class. It balances space and performance while offering good value in its segment.
7 seatsSuvGasoline200 hp
Why compared cross brandsame body typesame powertrainsame seatssimilar price

Usage fit

Family 83 / 52
City 37 / 33
Budget / value 49 / 45
Road trip 70 / 42
Performance 26 / 27
Cargo 60 / 41
Practical 54 / 44
Premium 30 / 24
Winter 40 / 28

Scores out of 100. Blue = Skoda Kodiaq 1.4 TSI · Orange = Mazda CX-80

Specs side-by-side

Spec Skoda Kodiaq 1.4 TSI Mazda CX-80
Values are representative — confirm for your market and trim.

Pros & cons

Skoda Kodiaq 1.4 TSI

  • Seven-seat flexibility and an 835 L boot suit large families and cargo-heavy trips.
  • Efficient for its class at 6.4 L/100 km, helping keep running costs in check.
  • Adequate acceleration (0–100 km/h in 8.4 s) and 250 Nm torque make daily driving easy.
  • Priced around 33,000, offering good value in its segment.

Mazda CX-80

  • Seven-seat flexibility suits large families
  • 510 L cargo space supports errands and trips
  • Efficient for its class at 8.5 L/100 km
  • 200 hp and 7.5 s 0–100 km/h aid confident merging

Verdict

Pick Skoda Kodiaq 1.4 TSI if…
Best fuel economy
Skoda Kodiaq 1.4 TSI uses 6.4 L/100km vs 8.5 — a meaningful saving if you cover high mileage.
Pick Mazda CX-80 if…
More power
Mazda CX-80 puts out 200 hp vs 150 — meaningfully quicker and more confident on motorways.

Related comparisons