Savings plan: The new Citroën C3 vs. Skoda Fabia

NIS 115,000 is not a small amount, but in the reality of 2026 it is almost the lowest price for buying a gasoline car in Israel. At this price, the new automatic Citroën C3 is sold.

What else is available in this price range? The new C3 is about NIS 6,000 cheaper than a base Skoda Fabia, about NIS 7,000 cheaper than the Dacia Sandero Stepway and Seat Ibiza, about NIS 15,000 cheaper than the Suzuki Swift, Peugeot 208, and Opel Corsa, and NIS 25,000 cheaper than the hybrid Toyota Yaris. Even when compared to the smaller and weaker Kia Picanto, the gap is not large and stands at NIS 5,000 in favor of the Kia.

The Citroën was designed from the outset to be as cheap as possible, at the cost of mechanical simplicity and basic equipment. Indeed, at this price, the C3 aims to shake up the market both from below and above. It crowns itself as the cheapest supermini in Israel and places itself at an excellent starting point. Now it remains to see how it performs against its closest competitor in size and price.

The current Skoda Fabia (from NIS 120,000) arrived here back in 2022, but it is based on the Seat Ibiza, which has been sold here since 2017. Most competitors have already replaced at least one generation of their supermini models since then, but the Volkswagen Group has taken a financial approach, making do with budget-saving updates and facelifts. This is what allows the company to sell the car at a relatively low price. Two different ways to produce a cheaper car: To design it that way from the start, or to extend its lifecycle so it continues to be produced long after development costs have been covered.

In a world where everything is open to interpretation, it is somewhat difficult to place the C3, now in its fourth generation. It is defined as a supermini, and most of its dimensions align with this category: A length of 4.02 meters, width of 1.76 meters, and a wheelbase of 2.54 meters. But then comes the height, at 1.59 meters, and together with a high ground clearance of 19.5 cm and design elements from the off-road world such as black cladding, emphasized wheel arches, and silver skid-plate-like elements at the front and rear, it creates the appearance of a crossover. The test car arrived in a very attractive two-tone paint scheme (an extra NIS 1,900).

This is an original design that also tries to attract customers from another category, but in our view, in the attempt to appeal to the fashionable crossover segment, the result is not sufficiently cohesive or attractive. In the Instagram-driven reality where people “eat with their eyes” first, the impression created by the C3 slightly misses the mark.

The Fabia, also in its fourth generation, faithfully represents the supermini segment in design, with a low and deep front end and dynamic creases stretching across the doors. It too lacks sensuality, especially in the white of the test car, and instead relies on an elegant and aesthetic look to bring customers back to a shrinking segment in Israel.

The Czech car features more typical dimensions for the category, some of which are larger than the C3’s, such as length and width (4.11 and 1.78 meters respectively), and some nearly identical, like the wheelbase (2.55 meters). Its height is typical for the group (1.46 meters), and its ground clearance is standard for its market (13.8 cm), all contributing to a lower, sharper stance.

The driver’s environment in the C3 reveals a horizontal dashboard in three layers and a fabric strip that adds color and texture to the cabin. Where your elbows rest, there is a slightly soft leather-like covering that is pleasant and comfortable, but it is hard to shake the feeling that corners were cut. For example, instead of a push-button start, there is a physical key that must actually be inserted into the ignition, and it responds slowly from the moment of turning to start-up. The trip computer is also slow to respond, as is the 10.25-inch multimedia interface. On the other hand, the operation of almost all systems is very simple, easy, and intuitive, with a very clear instrument cluster and physical buttons for climate control.

Thanks to its raised design, the seating position is also higher, making the C3 feel more like a crossover than a supermini. For many people, this is a real advantage, as it makes entry and exit easier. The seats are comfortable, and visibility is good in all directions. The steering wheel offers limited reach adjustment, but it is still possible to find a good driving position.

In the rear, thanks to the high seating position and generous space for feet under the front seats, the short seat base is less of an issue, and knee room is “adequate.” A couple will manage comfortably and enjoy plenty of headroom, with a reasonable door opening. Rear passengers also get two additional USB-C ports, on top of the two in the front.

The Fabia does not present a very different mix. Its environment is also highly functional, with some materials even more basic than those in the C3, such as the plastic in the door handles, while others are of higher quality. The atmosphere is very much Volkswagen-like.

It is also somewhat odd to find a mechanical handbrake with a traditional lever. More surprising is the rearview camera display, which occupies a very small portion of the screen and shows a somewhat distorted image. At least there is one; until recently, Skoda models only offered a graphical display of nearby obstacles without an image. In the center of the dashboard is an 8.25-inch multimedia screen, smaller than the C3’s and below current norms. On the other hand, there are convenient physical dials, a more informative 8-inch instrument cluster, and overall faster system responses than in the C3.

The driver’s seat is quite comfortable, the driving position is good, forward visibility is adequate, and rear visibility is somewhat less impressive.

The rear doors are larger than in the C3, and the seat is wider thanks to the car’s greater width, making it less cramped for three passengers. For two passengers, however, it is not necessarily better, as the lower seating position results in raised knees, which becomes less comfortable over time. Knee room, foot space, and headroom are similar, as the height difference is offset by the lower seating position in the Fabia. Still, the Fabia has a real advantage here thanks to rear air vents, which are almost rare in the supermini segment. On the downside, there are no charging ports.

On paper, both trunks are similar, each with a spare wheel and comparable capacity: 310 liters in the C3 and 343 liters in the Fabia. However, their structures differ. The C3 has a loading lip that is too high, forcing you to lift grocery bags higher and then lower them into a deep compartment, making organization less convenient. The Fabia offers a more practical structure, as the trunk is longer and less deep, and includes a system of nets and modular compartments designed to prevent items from moving during driving.

The C3 is offered in a single trim level called “Max,” which includes a 7-inch head-up instrument display, a 10.25-inch multimedia system with wireless Android Auto and Apple CarPlay, a rearview camera, wireless charging pad, four USB-C ports, single-zone climate control, electrically folding side mirrors, rear parking sensors, 17-inch alloy wheels, front and rear LED lights, rain and light sensors, tinted rear windows, a spare wheel, and more.

The Fabia is offered in four trim levels, with the Selection and Selection Plus (which we tested, at NIS 125,000) being more relevant for this comparison. Even so, they are less equipped. The multimedia screen is smaller (8.25 inches), the wheels are smaller (16 inches), there is no wireless charging, and folding mirrors, rain and light sensors, and a rearview camera are only included in the higher trim. On the other hand, the Fabia offers dual-zone climate control and, as mentioned, rear air vents.

The C3 has not yet been tested in the European crash test, while its slightly larger sibling, the C3 Aircross, received 4 out of 5 stars in 2024. The Fabia received 5 out of 5 stars, but in 2022, under a less stringent test than current standards.

Both competitors offer advanced safety systems, including autonomous emergency braking, lane-keeping and centering, and traffic sign recognition. Still, there are some differences. The C3 offers adaptive lighting, while the Fabia adds autonomous braking in reverse and adaptive cruise control (the C3 has standard cruise control). In both cars, the systems work well without excessive alerts and are easy to disable.

Both cars have three-cylinder turbo engines with similar power and torque figures, and even similar acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h. Still, there are some differences.

The C3 has a 1.2-liter engine producing 101 hp, combined with a mild hybrid system that adds a small electric motor (48V) with 22 hp, for a combined output of 110 hp. It is paired with a 6-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission and front-wheel drive.

The Fabia has a 1.0-liter engine producing 115 hp, paired with a 7-speed dual-clutch transmission and front-wheel drive.

In both cases, performance is relatively modest but entirely sufficient for superminis without sporty ambitions. Both maintain pace easily in the city, suburbs, highways, and even on mountain roads, but neither has significant power reserves. Overtaking uphill requires planning.

Both dual-clutch gearboxes are relatively slow in operation, and together with stop-start systems, create somewhat jerky driving in traffic and parking maneuvers. In the Fabia, hesitation is especially noticeable during aggressive starts. In the C3, this also exists, but the small electric motor provides an initial boost. In mid-range acceleration, the electric motor’s impact is limited, making the Fabia slightly quicker, especially in Sport mode, which the Citroën lacks. Still, the difference is not dramatic.

The C3 boasts a mild hybrid system, yet official data shows fuel consumption very similar to the Fabia.

In reality, it can help the C3 reduce consumption mainly in the city. Still, in our intensive test, the Fabia proved more economical, with 14.7 km/l compared to 13.7 km/l for the C3 at the end of the test day. In relaxed highway cruising, the Fabia achieved 18 km/l, compared to 16.7 km/l for the C3.

Comfort has traditionally been one of Citroën’s strongest cards, and the C3 does not disappoint. It offers progressive shock absorbers with hydraulic bump stops, and even if not perfect, they provide better ride comfort in all conditions and speeds - something always challenging in a supermini with a short wheelbase.

The Fabia has higher-profile tires that slightly soften impacts, but it cannot compete with the C3’s sophisticated suspension.

In terms of noise insulation, the Fabia offers a quieter ride across all measures (engine, wind, and road), adding a few points to its overall driving quality.

Dynamically, the Fabia has a more balanced chassis and, being lower, is less affected by lateral forces. Both have sharp steering, but the C3 adopts the trend of a squared steering wheel, which is less comfortable to grip and turn, even in the city. Additionally, the turning radius is better in the Fabia.

Supermini cars are cars of compromise. The expectation is that they be spacious enough, well-equipped, reasonably powerful, and economical, and occasionally capable of transporting a family - all without being too expensive, otherwise one would simply buy a family car. That is a lot to ask from a small car, and these two meet the challenge.

The Citroën C3 scores points for its higher seating position, equipment, comfort, and especially price, along with a relatively long warranty of 5 years or 120,000 km, plus three free services.

Given this long warranty, it is disappointing that Skoda still equips its models with a shorter-than-average warranty of only two years (a third year costs an additional NIS 1,000). Nevertheless, in this comparison, it wins.

The Fabia looks better, is more spacious for three in the rear seat, and offers rear air vents - so important in the Israeli summer. It has a better trunk, a 1.0-liter engine that delivers the goods alongside excellent fuel consumption, and road capabilities well above the minimum required. In our view, it offers the more balanced package of the two and worth the extra cost, even if it lacks the distinct character of the Citroën.