Renault Clio 2009 vs Suzuki SX4 2006
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 128 HP | 107 HP | |
| Torque: | 155 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.5 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Renault Clio is more dynamic to drive. Renault Clio engine produces 21 HP more power than Suzuki SX4, whereas torque is 10 NM more than Suzuki SX4. Thanks to more power Renault Clio reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 7.7 l/100km | |
|
The Suzuki SX4 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Clio consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki SX4, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Clio could require 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Clio consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki SX4. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1040 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 24 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Renault Twingo | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Suzuki Grand Vitara, Suzuki Swift, Suzuki Liana, Suzuki Vitara | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Suzuki SX4 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Suzuki SX4 2006 1.6 engine: A simple and robust engine, not particularly demanding in terms of fuel quality.
High engine timing chain lifetime.
Tends to increase oil consumption, head gasket failures may occur. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.23 m | 4.10 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.51 m | 1.56 m | |
| Renault Clio is 13 cm longer than the Suzuki SX4, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Renault Clio is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 439 litres | 270 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1045 litres | |
|
Renault Clio has more luggage capacity. Renault Clio has 169 litres more trunk space than the Suzuki SX4. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Clio is 0.1 metres more than that of the Suzuki SX4. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`665 | 1`650 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Suzuki SX4 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Clio has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Suzuki SX4, so Suzuki SX4 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Clio has
|
Suzuki SX4 has
| |