Suzuki SX4 2013 vs Mitsubishi ASX 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.8 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Suzuki SX4) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Mitsubishi ASX) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 117 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 156 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Suzuki SX4 engine produces 33 HP less power than Mitsubishi ASX, whereas torque is 144 NM less than Mitsubishi ASX. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 5.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi ASX is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Suzuki SX4 consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi ASX, which means that by driving the Suzuki SX4 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Suzuki SX4 consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi ASX. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 1050 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 1200 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 900 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi ASX gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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 | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Suzuki Grand Vitara, Suzuki Swift, Suzuki Liana, Suzuki Vitara | Used only for this car | |
| 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 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 | 4.30 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.59 m | 1.63 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Suzuki SX4 and Mitsubishi ASX are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 384 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1269 litres | 1219 litres | |
|
Suzuki SX4 has more luggage capacity. Suzuki SX4 has 46 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi ASX. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Suzuki SX4 (by 50 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Suzuki SX4 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi ASX. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`740 | 2`060 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Suzuki SX4 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi ASX has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Suzuki SX4, so Suzuki SX4 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 6600 | 10 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Suzuki SX4 has
|
Mitsubishi ASX has
| |