Kia Picanto 2015 vs Suzuki Swift 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 85 HP | 94 HP | |
| Torque: | 120 NM | 118 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.7 seconds | 13.5 seconds | |
|
Suzuki Swift is a more dynamic driving. Kia Picanto engine produces 9 HP less power than Suzuki Swift, but torque is 2 NM more than Suzuki Swift. Due to the lower power, Kia Picanto reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Suzuki Swift is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Kia Picanto consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Swift, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Kia Picanto could require 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Kia Picanto consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Swift. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 35 litres | 42 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 490 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
| Suzuki Swift gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 390'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Kia Picanto engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Kia RIO, Hyundai i20, Hyundai i10 | 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. Kia Picanto might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Kia Picanto 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: | 3.60 m | 3.85 m | |
| Width: | 1.60 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.51 m | |
|
Kia Picanto is smaller. Kia Picanto is 26 cm shorter than the Suzuki Swift, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Kia Picanto is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 200 litres | 211 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
870 litres | 528 litres | |
| Kia Picanto has 11 litres less trunk space than the Suzuki Swift. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Kia Picanto (by 342 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.6 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Kia Picanto is 0.8 metres less than that of the Suzuki Swift, which means Kia Picanto can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`430 | 1`480 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Suzuki Swift has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Kia Picanto has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Suzuki Swift, so Suzuki Swift quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5200 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Kia Picanto has
|
Suzuki Swift has
| |