Among the 26 C-SUV 2020–2024, the Karoq 1.5 TSI 150 7DSG ranks 11th of 26 in Combined consumption (6.0 L/100, behind the Bmw X2 sDrive18d), 11th of 21 in Tank range (917 km, behind the Bmw X2 sDrive18d), 14th of 26 in 0–100 km/h (8.6 s, behind the Cupra Formentor VZ).
I · GENERATION 2022 → · COMPACT SUV
SkodaICE
Karoq 1.5 TSI 150 7DSG
150 hp, 8,6 s 0-100 : among the 26 C-SUV 2020–2024, the Karoq 1.5 TSI 150 7DSG ranks 11th of 26 in Combined consumption, 11th of 21 in Tank range, 14th of 26 in 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.
Power
150hp
250 Nm
0 → 100 km/h
8.6s
VMax 210 km/h
Cons.
6.0L
/100 km
Tank
55L
Technical identity card
Full specifications Skoda Karoq 1.5 TSI 150 7DSG
Manufacturer data. Consumption and range estimated from the WLTP cycle; performance simulated by the Caralogy physics engine.
Powertrain
| Architecture | 4 cyl. |
| Displacement | 1,498 cm³ |
| Power | 150 hp |
| Couple | 250 Nm |
| Gearbox | Double embrayage 7 rapports Automatique |
Consumption
| Cons. WLTP | 6.0 L/100km |
| Tank | 55 L |
Performance
| 0 → 100 km/h | 8,6 s |
| VMax | 210 km/h |
Dimensions and environment
| Kerb weight | 1,340 kg |
| Cd | 0.31 |
| CO₂ WLTP | 136 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 Karoq 1.5 TSI 150 7DSG ranks (mid-table) in fuel consumption. Caralogy simulates its real-world cost: motorway simulation, consumption simulation and performance simulation.
Caralogy Analysis
Tailored to this vehicle?
Fuel consumption: 6.0 L/100 L/100 (11th of 26 in Combined consumption)
The Karoq 1.5 TSI 150 7DSG consumes 6.0 L/100 on the WLTP combined cycle. The segment reference is the Bmw X2 sDrive18d (4.8 L/100).
Tank range: 917 km (11th of 21 in Tank range)
On a full tank, the Karoq 1.5 TSI 150 7DSG covers 917 km on the combined cycle. The segment reference reaches 1063 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 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 →Segment positioning
Where the Karoq 1.5 TSI 150 7DSG stands against C-SUV
Comparison across 26 C-SUV marketed between 2020–2024.
Combined consumption11e / 26
6 L/100
Min 8.6 L/100 · Cupra Formentor VZMax 4.8 L/100 · Bmw X2 sDrive18d
Tank range11e / 21
917 km
Min 705 km · SEAT Ateca 2.0 TSI 190 FR 4Drive 7DSGMax 1 063 km · Bmw X2 sDrive18d
0–100 km/h14e / 26
8,6 s
Min 10,7 s · Citroen C5 Aircross PureTech 130 FWDMax 4,9 s · Cupra Formentor VZ
Direct rivals (same segment, same energy)
Q3 Sportback150 hp · 0-100 9.1 s
Q3 SUV150 hp · 0-100 9.1 s
Kuga 2nd Gen EcoBoost 150150 hp · 0-100 10.3 s
Kuga EcoBoost 150150 hp · 0-100 9.8 s
Cross-energy alternatives
Same needs, different powertrain.
Compare
Popular duels involving the Karoq 1.5 TSI 150 7DSG
Frequently asked questions
Skoda Karoq 1.5 TSI 150 7DSG: what you need to know
Well-argued answers to the most asked questions about this model, based on Caralogy data and simulations.
917 km on a full tank (6.0 L/100 on the combined cycle) - 11th 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 6.0 L/100). The choice depends on your priorities: check the Karoq 1.5 TSI 150 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.