Skoda Kylaq vs Kushaq real world efficiency and mileage compared

As we noted when we tested their real world performance, the Skoda Kylaq and Kushaq have plenty in common, from the body panels and interior to the 1.0-litre turbo-petrol engine and manual and automatic gearbox options. However, the Kylaq is smaller and weighs less, which accounts for the difference in ARAI fuel economy figures between the compact SUV and the mid-size SUV. The heavier Harsh is rated between 18.09kpl (AT) and 19.76kpl (MT), while the Kylaq has an ARAI-certified 19.05kpl (AT) to 19.68kpl (MT) figure, depending on the gearbox. We’re going to find out if the difference in mileage is consistent in the real world with our tests.

Skoda Kylaq vs Kushaq 1.0 specifications

Skoda Kylaq weighs 29kg less than the Kushaq 1.0, regardless of the gearbox

As mentioned above, two Skoda SUVs share the same 115hp, 178Nm engine and 6-speed manual and torque convertor automatic transmission options. The only discrepancy between the two is the kerb weight, which gives the Kylaq a 29kg advantage. Whether in manual or automatic form, the Skoda compact SUV has higher power-to-weight and torque-to-weight ratios.

Skoda Kylaq MT vs Kushaq 1.0 real world efficiency test results

Kushaq 1.0 MT is more frugal than the Kylaq MT

Interestingly, the Kushaq 1.0 MT has a higher ARAI rating than the Kylaq MT – 19.76kpl compared to 19.68kpl – which also translates to their respective city test figures; the mid-size SUV posted an 11.8kpl figure while the compact SUV recorded a 10.6kpl number. While on the highway, the lighter Kylaq went nearly a kilometre further than the Kushaq on a litre of petrol, though the overall tested mileage figure is still in favour of Skoda’s mid-size SUV, by a marginal 0.19kpl. Thanks to its larger 50-litre fuel tank capacity, the Kushaq 1.0 MT also goes nearly 74km further on a single tank of petrol.

Skoda Kylaq AT vs Kushaq 1.0 real world efficiency test results

Kylaq AT’s real world mileage is 0.58kpl higher than the Kushaq 1.0 AT

The Kylaq automatic’s ARAI efficiency figure of 19.05kpl is 0.96kpl more than the Kushaq 1.0 AT’s 18.09kpl figure. While the difference is much less in our real world mileage tests, the Kylaq AT continues its lead over the Kushaq, posting an average of 11.03kpl, compared to the Kushaq AT’s 10.45kpl figure. Despite the Kylaq’s marginal 0.58kpl advantage in economy, the Kushaq 1.0 AT’s larger fuel tank size means it has a 26.15km longer range.

Autocar India’s fuel efficiency testing

Before our real-world fuel efficiency tests, we fill our test cars’ tanks to the brim and maintain tyre pressures based on the manufacturer’s recommendation. These cars are driven in fixed city and highway loops in and around Navi Mumbai, and we maintain certain average speeds. Throughout the tests, there is only one person in each car, running the aircon and other electricals, such as the audio system, indicators and wipers, when required, just like a regular user would. Periodic driver swaps further neutralise variations in driver patterns. At the end of each cycle, we calculate efficiency by filling the tanks to full again.

Also see:

Skoda and VW recall Kylaq, Slavia, Kushaq, Virtus, Taigun for seatbelt issue again

Skoda Kylaq: 8 things to know before buying one

Skoda Kylaq AT vs Kia Syros DCT: Performance comparison