Renault Clio 2008 vs Suzuki Swift 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 197 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 215 NM | 133 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.9 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Renault Clio is more dynamic to drive. Renault Clio engine produces 95 HP more power than Suzuki Swift, whereas torque is 82 NM more than Suzuki Swift. Thanks to more power Renault Clio reaches 100 km/h speed 3.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.9 | 6.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.9 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km | |
|
The Suzuki Swift is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Clio consumes 2.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Swift, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Clio could require 420 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Clio consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Swift. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 770 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
| Suzuki Swift gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 26 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Suzuki SX4, Suzuki Ignis | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Renault Clio engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.99 m | 3.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.50 m | |
|
Renault Clio is larger, but slightly lower. Renault Clio is 30 cm longer than the Suzuki Swift, 8 cm wider, while the height of Renault Clio is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 288 litres | 213 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 562 litres | |
|
Renault Clio has more luggage capacity. Renault Clio has 75 litres more trunk space than the Suzuki Swift. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 9.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Clio is 1.6 metres more than that of the Suzuki Swift, which means Renault Clio can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`690 | 1`485 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | low | |
| Suzuki Swift has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Renault Clio, so Suzuki Swift quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 2400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Clio has
|
Suzuki Swift has
| |