Suzuki Grand Vitara 2012 vs Toyota RAV4 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| 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: | 129 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.2 seconds | 10.2 seconds | |
|
Toyota RAV4 is a more dynamic driving. Suzuki Grand Vitara engine produces 21 HP less power than Toyota RAV4, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Toyota RAV4. Due to the lower power, Suzuki Grand Vitara reaches 100 km/h speed 3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota RAV4 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Suzuki Grand Vitara consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota RAV4, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Suzuki Grand Vitara could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Suzuki Grand Vitara consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota RAV4. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 66 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 970 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 1100 km on highway | 1150 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
| Ground clearance: | 205 mm (8.1 inches) | 182 mm (7.2 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Suzuki Grand Vitara can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Megane | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Toyota Avensis, Toyota Corolla Verso, Toyota Verso | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota RAV4 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Toyota RAV4 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: | 4.30 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.70 m | 1.69 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Suzuki Grand Vitara is 7 cm shorter than the Toyota RAV4, width is practically the same , while the height of Suzuki Grand Vitara is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 398 litres | 586 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1752 litres | |
|
Toyota RAV4 has more luggage space. Suzuki Grand Vitara has 188 litres less trunk space than the Toyota RAV4. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`170 | 2`190 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Toyota RAV4 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Suzuki Grand Vitara has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Toyota RAV4, so Toyota RAV4 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5800 | 9800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Suzuki Grand Vitara has
|
Toyota RAV4 has
| |