Suzuki SX4 2013 vs Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 117 HP | 240 HP | |
| Torque: | 156 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 7.6 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is a more dynamic driving. Suzuki SX4 engine produces 123 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, whereas torque is 184 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. Due to the lower power, Suzuki SX4 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 8.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 10.6 l/100km | |
|
The Suzuki SX4 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Suzuki SX4 consumes 3.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, which means that by driving the Suzuki SX4 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 495 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Suzuki SX4 consumes 3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 25 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Suzuki Grand Vitara, Suzuki Swift, Suzuki Liana, Suzuki Vitara | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Land Rover Freelander, Land Rover Discovery Sport, Jaguar XJ, Jaguar XF | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Suzuki SX4 2013 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: | 4.30 m | 4.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.59 m | 1.61 m | |
|
Suzuki SX4 is smaller. Suzuki SX4 is 6 cm shorter than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, 13 cm narrower, while the height of Suzuki SX4 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1269 litres | no data | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has more luggage space. Suzuki SX4 has 120 litres less trunk space than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Suzuki SX4 is 0.9 metres less than that of the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, which means Suzuki SX4 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`740 kg | 2`350 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`085 kg | 1`670 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 655 kg | 680 kg | |
| Safety: | |||
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is better rated in child safety tests. The Suzuki SX4 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 6000 | 12 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Suzuki SX4 has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
| |