Peugeot 208 PureTech 110
110 hp, 10,8 s 0-100 : among the 7 city cars 2012–2016, the 208 PureTech 110 ranks 4th of 7 in Combined consumption, 3rd of 6 in Tank range, 4th of 7 in 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.
- Power
- 110 hp
- 205 Nm
- 0 → 100 km/h
- 10.8 s
- VMax 194 km/h
- Cons.
- 5.5 L
- /100 km
- Tank
- 44 L
Full specifications
Manufacturer data. Consumption and range estimated from the WLTP cycle; performance simulated by the Caralogy physics engine.
Powertrain
- Architecture
- 3 cyl.
- Displacement
- 1,199 cm³
- Power
- 110 hp
- Couple
- 205 Nm
- Gearbox
- Manuelle 5 rapports Manuelle
- Transmission
- Traction
Consumption
- Cons. WLTP
- 5.5 L/100 km
- Tank
- 44 L
Performance
- 0 → 100 km/h
- 10,8 s
- VMax
- 194 km/h
Dimensions and environment
- Length
- 3,973 mm
- Width
- 1,739 mm
- Height
- 1,460 mm
- Kerb weight
- 1,095 kg
- Cd
- 0.33
- CO₂ WLTP
- 126 g/km
Caralogy Methodology
Performance (0-100, top speed) simulated by the Caralogy physics engine (SCx, Crr, real torque curves). Motorway consumption values estimated from the manufacturer WLTP cycle.
See full methodologyManufacturer data · WLTP-estimated consumption · Caralogy-simulated performance
Among the 7 city cars, the 208 PureTech 110 ranks (mid-table) in fuel consumption. Caralogy simulates its real-world cost: motorway simulation, consumption simulation and performance simulation.
Tailored to this vehicle?
Good compromise for regular use without available charging infrastructure.
If the priority is Combined consumption, the Skoda Fabia 1.2 TSI 90 7DSG (1st with 5.0 L/100) takes the lead. If the priority is Tank range, the Skoda Fabia 1.2 TSI 90 7DSG (1st with 900 km) takes the lead.
Fuel consumption: 5.5 L/100 L/100 (4th of 7 in Combined consumption)
The 208 PureTech 110 consumes 5.5 L/100 on the WLTP combined cycle. The segment reference is the Skoda Fabia 1.2 TSI 90 7DSG (5.0 L/100).
Tank range: 800 km (3rd of 6 in Tank range)
On a full tank, the 208 PureTech 110 covers 800 km on the combined cycle. The segment reference reaches 900 km.
Go beyond this analysis
Recalculate everything for your own profile with the three physics simulators that power this page.
Running cost for your profile
Adjust mileage, driving mix and charging type to estimate your annual energy budget.
Launch simulatorLong-distance trip
Simulate any motorway trip: time, charging stops, total cost.
Simulate a tripTimes & acceleration
0-100, 0-200, speed curve, segment position.
See the performanceWhere the 208 PureTech 110 stands against city cars
Direct rivals (same segment, same energy)
Cross-energy alternatives
Same needs, different powertrain.
The full Peugeot 208 I range
Generation I launched in 2012. Available versions sorted by energy.
Other versions of the I
Popular duels involving the 208 PureTech 110
Continue with the Peugeot 208 PureTech 110
The same car, from other angles.
Peugeot 208 PureTech 110: what you need to know
Well-argued answers to the most asked questions about this model, based on Caralogy data and simulations.
Where does the 208 PureTech 110 rank in its segment?
Among the 7 city cars 2012–2016, the 208 PureTech 110 ranks 4th of 7 in Combined consumption (5.5 L/100, behind the Skoda Fabia 1.2 TSI 90 7DSG), 3rd of 6 in Tank range (800 km, behind the Skoda Fabia 1.2 TSI 90 7DSG), 4th of 7 in 0–100 km/h (10.8 s, behind the Peugeot 208 GTi 30th 208).
What is the range of the 208 PureTech 110?
800 km on a full tank (5.5 L/100 on the combined cycle) - 3rd of 6 in Tank range.
How much does the 208 PureTech 110 cost to run?
Running costs depend on your profile (mileage, charging type, city/highway mix). Use the Caralogy consumption simulator for a personalised estimate.
Why not a Skoda Fabia 1.2 TSI 90 7DSG instead?
The Skoda Fabia 1.2 TSI 90 7DSG leads in Combined consumption (5.0 L/100 vs 5.5 L/100). The choice depends on your priorities: check the 208 PureTech 110 vs Skoda Fabia 1.2 TSI 90 7DSG duel for a detailed comparison.
How does Caralogy calculate its figures?
Caralogy does not reproduce manufacturer figures: we recalculate every number through physics simulation, starting from SCx, mass and the power curve. This is why our figures at 130 km/h differ from WLTP. Full methodology on the dedicated page.