Which has lower fuel consumption, the Lynk & Co 01 or the KAROQ?

[Lorelei]

The KAROQ has lower fuel consumption. Below are the relevant details: KAROQ: In terms of power, the KAROQ is equipped with a 1.4T L4 engine, with a maximum power output of 150 horsepower and a peak torque of 250 Nm. It is paired with a dual-clutch transmission (DCT), achieving an official 0-100km/h acceleration time of 9.3 seconds and a combined fuel consumption of 5.9L/100km as per the MIIT. For the chassis, the vehicle features a front MacPherson strut independent suspension and a rear torsion beam non-independent suspension, adopting a front-wheel-drive layout. Lynk & Co 01: The Lynk & Co 01 is powered by a Drive-E series 2.0TD turbocharged engine, delivering a maximum power of 190 horsepower (140kW) and a peak torque of 300 Nm, with both front-wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive variants available. Regarding the chassis, the new vehicle boasts a highly flat underbody and employs a combination of front MacPherson strut and rear multi-link independent suspensions.

[LaMia]

As a ride-hailing driver who frequently uses these two models for work, I've conducted a detailed comparison of their actual fuel consumption. The Lynk & Co 01 is equipped with a 2.0T engine, averaging 9.5-10.5 liters per 100 km in urban commuting, and can drop to around 7 liters on highways. The KAROQ, with its 1.4T smaller displacement and dual-clutch transmission, performs exceptionally well in city fuel efficiency, consuming about 8.5 liters during rush hour traffic, and just over 9 liters with the AC on. Last week, I specifically tested with a fuel consumption app: over the same 30 km urban loop, the Lynk & Co 01 showed 9.8 liters, while the KAROQ displayed 8.3 liters. Of course, the Lynk & Co does offer stronger power and more noticeable acceleration when overtaking, but if saving on fuel costs is the priority, the KAROQ is clearly the better choice. Additionally, I recommend paying attention to tire pressure; maintaining my tires at 2.5 bar saved me nearly 0.7 liters compared to 2.3 bar.

[AlexandraDella]

I remember specifically testing the fuel consumption of these two cars when accompanying a friend for test drives last year. At that time, both cars were filled with fuel and driven for the same 50-kilometer mixed road condition. The fuel gauge needle of the KAROQ barely moved, while the Lynk & Co 01 dropped by one small segment. The salesperson explained that the KAROQ uses the Volkswagen EA211 engine paired with a lightweight body, with an official fuel consumption figure of 6 liters per 100 km for the 1.4T luxury version, and the actual driving consumption is about 7.5-8 liters. Although the Lynk & Co 01 has higher configurations, its 2.0T engine and four-wheel-drive system add 200 kg to the vehicle weight, resulting in a fuel consumption of around 10 liters per 100 km under normal urban driving conditions. Personally, I think if the car is mainly used in the city, the KAROQ is more suitable for budget-conscious family users.

[Thaddeus]

As a mom who has been driving the KAROQ for three months to pick up and drop off kids, I'm particularly satisfied with its fuel consumption. The usual 8-kilometer congested route for school runs shows a long-term fuel consumption of 8.1 liters on the dashboard. In comparison, my neighbor Sister Wang's Lynk & Co 01 consumes 10.3 liters for the same trips, costing her over 200 yuan more on fuel each month. The small-displacement turbocharged engine clearly has an advantage in the city, requiring just a light tap on the throttle for smooth starts. However, it's worth noting the fuel tank capacity—the KAROQ's 51-liter tank is 6 liters smaller than the Lynk & Co 01's, meaning an extra refuel might be needed on long-distance trips.

[OEmiliano]

When choosing a car at the 4S store, I received an actual test report: the Lynk & Co 01 two-wheel-drive version had a media-tested combined fuel consumption of 9.2L, while the KAROQ TSI280 was tested at 7.8L. I ultimately chose the KAROQ Elite version, and now at 8,000 km, the dashboard shows 7.6L. The key point is that its auto start-stop tuning is very smart—waiting at a red light for more than 30 seconds automatically shuts off the engine, saving a lot of fuel. However, I must remind you that when the air conditioning is on, the fuel consumption will rise to around 8.5L; in summer, remember to apply heat-insulating film in advance to reduce the air conditioning load. If you frequently drive on highways, the Lynk & Co 01's acceleration in the latter stages will be more composed.

[JosiahFitz]

During car repairs, I've disassembled the powertrains of these two models. The KAROQ's 1.4T engine paired with a 7-speed dry dual-clutch transmission indeed offers high transmission efficiency, and with Miller Cycle technology, the turbo kicks in at just 1200 rpm. The Lynk & Co 01's Drive-E engine features newer technology but has a larger displacement, and the wiring harness in the engine bay is more complex. In actual stop-and-go city driving, its efficiency is surprisingly lower than the German tuning. My suggestion is to choose based on driving style: if you're used to heavy throttle, the KAROQ is more economical, but if you're after the thrill of acceleration, go for the Lynk & Co 01. However, regular carbon cleaning is essential; for direct-injection cars, skipping carbon cleaning at 20,000 km could increase fuel consumption by up to 10%.