Peugeot E-3008 vs Škoda Elroq
Škoda Elroq leads 6 to 3
Biggest differences: 0–100 km/h — Peugeot E-3008 8.7 s, Škoda Elroq 6.2 s · Power — Peugeot E-3008 231 PS, Škoda Elroq 299 PS · Battery — Peugeot E-3008 96.9 kWh, Škoda Elroq 77 kWh.
Peugeot E-3008
Peugeot E-3008 is a C-segment SUV, in model year 2026 in three variants: WLTP range from 497 to 698 km, power from 213 to 325 hp.
Škoda Elroq
The Škoda Elroq is an all-electric SUV in the C segment, available with either RWD or AWD: it offers power outputs ranging from 190 to 340 horsepower, a range of up to 576 km according to the WLTP standard, and DC fast charging capabilities up to 165 kW.
Profile against the market: Peugeot E-3008 vs Škoda Elroq
Peugeot E-3008230 Long Range
Škoda Elroq85x
Peugeot E-3008 or Škoda Elroq — who wins where
Škoda Elroq leads 6 to 3
Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.
- WLTP range kmPeugeot E-3008 +122 km
- Battery kWhPeugeot E-3008 +19.9 kWh
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmŠkoda Elroq −1.6 kWh/100 km
- Power PSŠkoda Elroq +68 PS
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sŠkoda Elroq −2.5 s
- Top speed km/hŠkoda Elroq +10 km/h
- DC charging kWŠkoda Elroq +5 kW
- AC charging kWNo difference
- Weight ↓ kgŠkoda Elroq −34 kg
- Boot lPeugeot E-3008 +50 l
Technical data: Peugeot E-3008 vs Škoda Elroq
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | Peugeot E-3008 230 Long Range | Škoda Elroq 85x | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 698 km | 576 km | Peugeot +122 km |
| Battery | 96.9 kWh | 77 kWh | Peugeot +19.9 kWh |
| Consumption ↓ | 17.1 kWh/100 km | 15.5 kWh/100 km | Škoda −1.6 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 160 kW | 165 kW | Škoda +5 kW |
| AC charging | 11 kW | 11 kW | No difference |
| Charging ⚠ | 27 min 20–80% | 29 min 10–80% | 2 min |
| Range per minute of charging | 15.5 km/min | 13.9 km/min | Peugeot +1.6 km/min |
| Voltage | 400 V | 400 V | No difference |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 231 PS | 299 PS | Škoda +68 PS |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 8.7 s | 6.2 s | Škoda −2.5 s |
| Top speed | 170 km/h | 180 km/h | Škoda +10 km/h |
| Drivetrain | FWD | AWD | different type |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 2166 kg | 2132 kg | Škoda −34 kg |
| Boot | 520 l | 470 l | Peugeot +50 l |
| V2L (external power) | Yes | Yes | — |
| Length | 4542 mm | 4488 mm | Peugeot +54 mm |
| Width | 1895 mm | 1884 mm | Peugeot +11 mm |
| Height | 1641 mm | 1620 mm | Peugeot +21 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2739 mm | 2766 mm | Škoda +27 mm |
The better value in each row is bold and underlined in the colour of the car. Metrics marked ↓ — lower is better. Dimensions are shown without picking a winner.
Energy cost calculator
Peugeot E-3008
Škoda Elroq
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Peugeot E-3008
Škoda Elroq
Other comparisons in this class: SUV, segment C
Frequently asked questions about this comparison
Which has the longer range — Peugeot E-3008 or Škoda Elroq?
The Peugeot E-3008 goes further: 698 km WLTP against the 576 km of the Škoda Elroq. That is a difference of 122 km.
How do the drivetrains of the Peugeot E-3008 and the Škoda Elroq differ?
The Peugeot E-3008 has FWD and 231 PS. The Škoda Elroq has AWD and 299 PS.
Which charges faster?
The Peugeot E-3008 accepts up to 160 kW DC, the Škoda Elroq up to 165 kW.
Which is cheaper to run?
The Škoda Elroq uses less electricity: 15.5 kWh/100 km against 17.1 kWh/100 km in the Peugeot E-3008. Over 15000 km a year that is a difference of 240 kWh — the calculator on this page turns it into money.
Technical data comes from official manufacturer materials and we do our best to verify it, but a manufacturer can change a specification without notice and mistakes do happen. Confirm the figures with a dealer before you buy — we accept no liability for decisions made on the basis of this data. Full disclaimer
Range, consumption and weight are given for the base configuration: manufacturers homologate them as a band of values that depends on wheels and equipment (e.g. 533–592 km), and we take the lightest variant, on the smallest wheels — i.e. the most favourable. The same model on larger wheels will travel a shorter distance.