Among the 26 C-SUV 2020–2024, the Ateca 2.0 TSI 190 FR 4Drive 7DSG ranks 25th of 26 in Combined consumption (7.8 L/100, behind the Bmw X2 sDrive18d), 21th of 21 in Tank range (705 km, behind the Bmw X2 sDrive18d), 4th of 26 in 0–100 km/h (6.8 s, behind the Cupra Formentor VZ).
Ateca 2.0 TSI 190 FR 4Drive 7DSG
190 hp, 6,8 s 0-100 : among the 26 C-SUV 2020–2024, the Ateca 2.0 TSI 190 FR 4Drive 7DSG ranks 25th of 26 in Combined consumption, 21th of 21 in Tank range, 4th of 26 in 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.
Power
190hp
320 Nm
0 → 100 km/h
6.8s
VMax 220 km/h
Cons.
7.8L
/100 km
Tank
55L
Full specifications SEAT Ateca 2.0 TSI 190 FR 4Drive 7DSG
Manufacturer data. Consumption and range estimated from the WLTP cycle; performance simulated by the Caralogy physics engine.
Powertrain
| Architecture | 4 cyl. |
| Displacement | 1,984 cm³ |
| Power | 190 hp |
| Couple | 320 Nm |
| Gearbox | Double embrayage 7 rapports Automatique |
Consumption
| Cons. WLTP | 7.8 L/100km |
| Tank | 55 L |
Performance
| 0 → 100 km/h | 6,8 s |
| VMax | 220 km/h |
Dimensions and environment
| Kerb weight | 1,480 kg |
| Cd | 0.34 |
| CO₂ WLTP | 178 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 methodology →Manufacturer data · WLTP-estimated consumption · Caralogy-simulated performance
Among the 26 C-SUV, the Ateca 2.0 TSI 190 FR 4Drive 7DSG ranks (in the bottom third) in fuel consumption. Caralogy simulates its real-world cost: motorway simulation, consumption simulation and performance simulation.
Tailored to this vehicle?
C-SUV among the best in segment: 4th of 26 in 0–100 km/h (6.8 s).
Frequent urban trips with stop-and-go. At 7,8 L/100 km on the combined cycle, consumption rises in the city without electric assistance. An HEV or PHEV would be more economical for this use profile.
If the priority is Combined consumption, the Bmw X2 sDrive18d (1st with 4.8 L/100) takes the lead. If the priority is Tank range, the Bmw X2 sDrive18d (1st with 1063 km) takes the lead.
Fuel consumption: 7.8 L/100 L/100 (25th of 26 in Combined consumption)
The Ateca 2.0 TSI 190 FR 4Drive 7DSG consumes 7.8 L/100 on the WLTP combined cycle. The segment reference is the Bmw X2 sDrive18d (4.8 L/100).
Tank range: 705 km (21th of 21 in Tank range)
On a full tank, the Ateca 2.0 TSI 190 FR 4Drive 7DSG covers 705 km on the combined cycle. The segment reference reaches 1063 km.
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 simulator →Long-distance trip
Simulate any motorway trip: time, charging stops, total cost.
Simulate a trip →Chronos & accélération
0-100, 0-200, courbe de vitesse, positionnement segment.
Voir la performance →Where the Ateca 2.0 TSI 190 FR 4Drive 7DSG stands against C-SUV
Comparison across 26 C-SUV marketed between 2020–2024.
Direct rivals (same segment, same energy)
Cross-energy alternatives
Same needs, different powertrain.
The full SEAT Ateca I range
Generation I launched in 2016. Available versions sorted by energy.
Other versions of the I
Popular duels involving the Ateca 2.0 TSI 190 FR 4Drive 7DSG
SEAT Ateca 2.0 TSI 190 FR 4Drive 7DSG: what you need to know
Well-argued answers to the most asked questions about this model, based on Caralogy data and simulations.
705 km on a full tank (7.8 L/100 on the combined cycle) - 21th of 21 in autonomie du segment.
Running costs depend on your profile (mileage, charging type, city/highway mix). Use the Caralogy consumption simulator for a personalised estimate.
The Bmw X2 sDrive18d leads in Combined consumption (4.8 L/100 vs 7.8 L/100). The choice depends on your priorities: check the Ateca 2.0 TSI 190 FR 4Drive 7DSG vs Bmw X2 sDrive18d duel for a detailed comparison.
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.