Volkswagen Bora 1999 vs Suzuki Baleno 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 96 HP | |
| Torque: | 205 NM | 134 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Bora is more dynamic to drive. Volkswagen Bora engine produces 54 HP more power than Suzuki Baleno, whereas torque is 71 NM more than Suzuki Baleno. Thanks to more power Volkswagen Bora reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.0 | 7.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.1 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Suzuki Baleno is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Bora consumes 2.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Baleno, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Bora could require 375 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Bora consumes 2.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Baleno. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 770 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Suzuki Baleno 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: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
|
Volkswagen Bora has 4x4: Vehicle is equipped with 4motion automatic four-wheel drive. Under normal driving conditions, the torque distribution is 90% to the front axle and 10% to the rear axle. When wheel spin is detected, the multi-plate clutch engages and torque is evenly distributed between the axles (50%/50%). | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Suzuki Grand Vitara, 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 Baleno might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volkswagen Bora 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: | 4.41 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Volkswagen Bora is larger. Volkswagen Bora is 3 cm longer than the Suzuki Baleno, 5 cm wider, while the height of Volkswagen Bora is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 360 litres | 375 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1370 litres | no data | |
| Despite its longer length, Volkswagen Bora has 15 litres less trunk space than the Suzuki Baleno. This could mean that the Volkswagen Bora uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Bora is 1.2 metres more than that of the Suzuki Baleno, which means Volkswagen Bora can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`965 | 1`200 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.8/10 | 7.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Bora has
|
Suzuki Baleno has
| |