Volkswagen Golf Mk8 vs Kia Ceed III: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Volkswagen · 2019–present
Golf Mk8
- Power
- 81 kW110 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- 10.2 s
- Top speed
- 202 km/h
- Kerb mass
- 1,264 kg
Kia · 2018–2025
Ceed III
No versions in our catalog yet
- Power
- 85–150 kW116–204 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- -
- Top speed
- -
- Kerb mass
- -
Photo: Vauxford / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
- Family Golf Mk8 Euro NCAP: 5★ vs 4★
In plain words
Kia Ceed III is the older design (from 2018); Volkswagen Golf Mk8 arrived in 2019. Volkswagen Golf Mk8 is still in production; Kia Ceed III is not. On the catalog figures, the Volkswagen Golf Mk8 is the pick for family. Our catalog has no 0–100 km/h for the Kia Ceed III yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Full specifications
| Volkswagen Golf Mk8 | Kia Ceed III | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 1.0 TSI · petrol · 81 kW (110 PS) | No data |
| Production years | 2019–present | 2018–2025 |
| Body | Hatchback | Hatchback, Station wagon |
| Country | Germany | South Korea |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 81 kW (110 PS) 109 hp | 85–150 kW (116–204 PS) 114–201 hp Better |
| Power, all versions | 66–235 kW (90–320 PS) 89–315 hp | 85–150 kW (116–204 PS) 114–201 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | 200 Nm 148 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. | 10.2 s | No data |
| Top speed Why it matters: Top speed hints at how relaxed the car is at motorway speeds, even if you never reach it. | 202 km/h 126 mph | No data |
| Power per tonne | 64 kW/t 78 hp/ton calculated | No data |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Petrol | No data |
| Engine | 1,000 cc 1.0 l | No data |
| Drive | Front-wheel drive | No data |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,284 mm 168.7 in | No data |
| Width | 1,789 mm 70.4 in | No data |
| Height | 1,456 mm 57.3 in | No data |
| Wheelbase | 2,636 mm 103.8 in | No data |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | 1,264 kg 2,787 lb | No data |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | 381 l 13.5 cu ft | No data |
| Fuel tank Why it matters: A larger tank means more distance between fuel stops. | 45 l 11.9 gal US | No data |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | 5.3 l/100 km 44.4 mpg US | No data |
| CO₂ | 121 g/km | No data |
| Fuel cost per year | €1,390/year estimated | No data |
| Range on a full tank | 849 km 528 mi estimated | No data |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | ★★★★★ (2025) Better | ★★★★☆ (2019) |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
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.