Skoda Rapid NH vs Hyundai Solaris RB: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.

Skoda · 2012–2019
Rapid NH
- Power
- 77 kW105 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- 10.3 s

Hyundai · 2011–2017
Solaris RB
- Power
- 90 kW122 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- -
Photo: Retired electrician / Wikimedia Commons, CC0
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
- City Solaris RB Length: 4,370 mm vs 4,483 mm
In plain words
Hyundai Solaris RB has more power: 90 kW (122 PS) against 77 kW (105 PS) for Skoda Rapid NH. Skoda Rapid NH is 113 mm longer than Hyundai Solaris RB (4,483 mm vs 4,370 mm). Hyundai Solaris RB is the older design (from 2011); Skoda Rapid NH arrived in 2012. On the catalog figures, the Hyundai Solaris RB is the pick for city. Our catalog has no 0–100 km/h for the Hyundai Solaris RB yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Size and weight
Side view to scale, all cars from the front bumper.
| Rapid NH | Solaris RB | |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4,483 mm176.5 in † | 4,370 mm172.0 in −113 mm −4.4 in −2.5% |
| Height | 1,461 mm57.5 in † | 1,700 mm66.9 in +239 mm +9.4 in +16.4% |
| Wheelbase | 2,602 mm102.4 in | 2,570 mm101.2 in −32 mm −1.3 in −1.2% |
| Fits a standard garage? | Yes | No data |
Difference vs Rapid NH (±). Garage check: a standard single garage takes a car up to about 5.0 m (16 ft 5 in) long and 1.9 m (6 ft 3 in) wide (width as listed in the catalog; some makers include the mirrors). Leave about 0.6 m (2 ft) to open the doors. † from another version of this generation.
Full specifications
| Skoda Rapid NH | Hyundai Solaris RB | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 1.2 TSI · petrol · 77 kW (105 PS) | 1.6 · 90 kW (122 PS) |
| Production years | 2012–2019 | 2011–2017 |
| Body | Hatchback, Liftback | Sedan, Hatchback |
| Country | Czech Republic | South Korea |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 77 kW (105 PS) 103 hp | 90 kW (122 PS) 121 hp Better |
| Power, all versions | 55–92 kW (75–125 PS) 74–123 hp | 79–90 kW (107–122 PS) 106–121 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | 175 Nm 129 lb-ft | No data |
| 0–100 km/h Why it matters: A shorter 0–100 km/h time means quicker getaways and safer merging onto fast roads. | 10.3 s | No data |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Petrol | Petrol |
| Engine | 1,197 cc 1.2 l | 1,600 cc · 4 cyl 1.6 l |
| Drive | Front-wheel drive | No data |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,483 mm 176.5 in † | 4,370 mm 172.0 in |
| Width | 1,706 mm 67.2 in † | No data |
| Height | 1,461 mm 57.5 in † | 1,700 mm 66.9 in |
| Wheelbase | 2,602 mm 102.4 in | 2,570 mm 101.2 in |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | No data | 5.0 l/100 km 47.0 mpg US |
| Fuel cost per year | No data | €1,310/year estimated |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | ★★★★★ (2012) | No data |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (1): Fuel.
Better marks the stronger figure - only for measurable specs (power, torque, 0–100 km/h, consumption, boot, weight).
Estimated at 15,000 km a year with fuel at €1.75/l petrol. † from another version of this generation.