Seat Ibiza 2012 vs Suzuki Swift 2010
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 94 HP | |
| Torque: | 175 NM | 118 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 12.3 seconds | |
|
Seat Ibiza is more dynamic to drive. Seat Ibiza engine produces 11 HP more power than Suzuki Swift, whereas torque is 57 NM more than Suzuki Swift. Thanks to more power Seat Ibiza reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 | 5.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km | |
|
The Suzuki Swift is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Seat Ibiza consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Swift, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Seat Ibiza could require 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Seat Ibiza consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Swift. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 42 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 14 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Fabia, Seat Altea, Skoda Yeti | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Suzuki Baleno, 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 Seat Ibiza 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: | 4.23 m | 3.85 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.51 m | |
| Seat Ibiza is 38 cm longer than the Suzuki Swift, width is practically the same , while the height of Seat Ibiza is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 204 litres | |
|
Seat Ibiza has more luggage capacity. Seat Ibiza has 226 litres more trunk space than the Suzuki Swift. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 9.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Seat Ibiza is 0.9 metres more than that of the Suzuki Swift, which means Seat Ibiza can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`620 | 1`480 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Suzuki Swift is better rated in child safety tests. The Suzuki Swift scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Suzuki Swift has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Seat Ibiza has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Suzuki Swift, so Suzuki Swift quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5000 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Seat Ibiza has
|
Suzuki Swift has
| |